Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

Order for consideration of motion read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered upon Thursday 25 July.

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY (MONEY)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Yorkshire Water Authority Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under section 90(6) of the Land Drainage Act 1976.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 25 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sixth Forms

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Mrs. Currie: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 21 February, Official Report, column 533, if he will specify the compelling educational considerations which would lead him to decide against the retention of a good school's sixth form.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): The compelling considerations are likely to include the impact of falling rolls on all schools in the area and the opportunities, including alternative provision, available to the local education authority in order to provide an effective range of educational opportunities for those of secondary school age.

Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sixth forms of our good state schools provide the best education in the country? Will he confirm that the restructuring proposals available to the teachers' unions include elements that will allow recognition of the skills and talents of the staff that make those sixth forms the best?

Mr. Dunn: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in the general thrust of her comments. It is our intention to seek to retain all that is good at all levels of educational provision in this country. Our policies and results are in stark contrast to those of the Socialist parties on the

Opposition side, which would abolish the grammar schools, the assisted places scheme and the independent schools and would seek to abolish the voluntary controlled schools and do a great deal more damage of an extremist type.

Mr. Lilley: Is my hon. Friend aware that all three opposition parties on Hertfordshire county council, which collectively have a majority of seats, propose to abolish sixth forms in our state schools and replace them with separate colleges? Is he aware that the proposal is causing grave alarm among parents, pupils and teachers? Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that if any such proposals are put to him he will veto them?

Mr. Dunn: The legal position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not permit me to give such an undertaking. However, I assure my hon. Friend that it is for Hertfordshire county council to review school provision and to make such proposals as are necessary, and they will be very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend if they should come before him.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that we must balance the need for a wide curriculum at A-level, which may necessitate the provision of tertiary colleges, with the need to maintain community schools? Will he, therefore, reject the one-sided and narrow advice of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley)?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman falls into the category of a Socialist in education. He wishes to impose one model of provision on all local education authorities.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I said the opposite of that.

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman did not. He implied that a comprehensive system with a tertiary college was by far the best. I say that that is not the case.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Andrew Bennett, question No. 2.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it has been agreed that we should take this question at the end. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker: If the Secretary of State says so.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I understood that that arrangement was made with your agreement, Mr. Speaker.

International Youth Year

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on International Youth Year and the youth service.

Mr. Dunn: The Government are directly supporting International Youth Year by grant-aiding the four national co-ordinating committees in the United Kingdom. A very wide range of organisations, particularly voluntary youth organisations and local authorities, are involved in activities relating to the year. Many activities in Government programmes have relevance to the objectives of the year. Among positive youth service initiatives this year, the Department has issued an important circular about the planning and management of the service.

Mr. Boyes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that John O'Leary, writing in The Times Higher Education Supplement on Britain's contribution to International Youth Year, said:


declarations of support and minimal funding smack of tokenism"?
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned about Britain's meagre, pathetic and contemptuous contribution to this fund, especially when small countries such as Australia can give $4 million and Canada $12 million?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman must accept from me that youth service expenditure goes into a number of heads across the whole of local government activity, not just the local education authority service or direct funding by us. Total grant-aid from the four home education departments to International Youth Year national co-ordinating committees in the United Kingdom from the beginning of funding until the end of this financial year is expected to be greater than £500,000.

Mr. Forth: Has my hon. Friend any evidence that these so-called designated years do any good to anyone at any time? Does he share my view that they are an excuse for inactivity and the very tokenism to which the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) referred? Will my hon. Friend give the most careful consideration before committing public funds in future to one of these silly years?

Mr. Dunn: I feel that I should be speechless in the light of that question. However, I share some of my hon. Friend's concern. His point of view will be noted not only by me but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Foster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the youth service, because of its rather weak statutory base, is always squeezed when the Government cut education expenditure? How does he justify the type of statements that he has made from the Dispatch Box in International Youth Year knowing full well that the youth service is being severely reduced throughout the country?

Mr. Dunn: I always speak with as much certainty as I can. Aggregate expenditure in the local authority sector on the youth service rose by 8 per cent. in real terms between 1982–83 and 1983–84, following an increase of 5 per cent. in real terms between 1981–82 and 1982–83. That does not support the hon. Gentleman's point.

School Buildings

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding funds for maintenance and repair of school buildings.

Mr. Dunn: Within the last few months my right hon. Friend has received the report of Her Majesty's inspectors on the effects on education provision of LEA expenditure policies in 1984 and the 1985 report of the expenditure steering group on education, both of which consider the repair and maintenance of the educational building fabric among other issues. The question of school repair and maintenance was also discussed at this month's meeting of NEDC. In addition, my right hon. Friend and I receive letters on this subject from time to time.

Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that LEAs are facing a crisis with regard to their buildings? For example, Lancashire county council estimates that it needs to spend £32·7 million this year to put its school buildings in order. The council is able to spend only £6·1 million because of the Government's revenue and capital

restraints. Is it not time that the Government provided sufficient money for councils to deal with their buildings and stop deterioration, otherwise there will be consequent effects on education?

Mr. Dunn: The allocation for Lancashire is already the second highest given to any LEA for 1985–86.

Mr. Powley: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is always, even in education, a limited amount of money available within the budget, however sympathetic we may be? Does he agree that if a greater proportion of that money is taken up in wages and salaries a lower proportion will be expended on maintaining school buildings and other vital school equipment? Does my hon. Friend agree also that moderation in pay settlements must encourage local authorities to spend more money on maintaining school buildings?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend's interpretation is right. I am pleased to say that since 1978–79 local education authorities have increased their spending on repair and maintenance of educational buildings. Spending increased by 8 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1983–84 -the latest year for which information is available.

Mr. Freud: Does the Minister accept that some local authorities are incapable of solving their present financial problems in respect of rebuilding and repairing schools? Will he ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to allow them a one-off grant?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman's comments will be in the Official Report, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will probably read them. If costs can be maintained and savings made elsewhere, our plans for 1985–86 should provide scope for some improvement in the level of expenditure per pupil on repairs and maintenance in many authorities.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is important for school buildings to be properly maintained, so that they do not become damaged or derelict? Does he accept that some pupils can contribute to the maintenance of buildings, as I know from experience? Could that be considered?

Mr. Dunn: I am perfectly prepared to take on board anything that my hon. Friend says, in view of his long experience in the education service.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the Minister aware that some school buildings which I visited recently are in such a condition that if they came under the offices and factories legislation they would have been closed by now?

Mr. Dunn: I take seriously the concern expressed in the reports and in comments made today about the state of many schools and college buildings. It is clear that that is the accumulated result of inadequate expenditure on repair and maintenance of the building stock for many years.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: When my hon. Friend considers the question of schools which have amalgamated because of falling rolls and which now require larger sports and recreational facilities to cope with the larger numbers of pupils, will he bear in mind that Roman Catholic and Anglican churches in Lancashire have meticulously raised money to repair their buildings, and that they cover 50 per cent. of the children in Lancashire?

Mr. Dunn: I understand precisely my hon. Friend's point. However, if the Labour party had its way, there would be no Church schools about which she could be concerned.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In his opening remarks the Minister mentioned the National Economic Development Council. Does he accept that the Department, in its evidence to the NEDC, stresses that a significant number of our pupils and students are now being taught in wholly inadequate accommodation? What will the Government do about finding extra money for local authorities and to remove the penalties in the present rate support grant system from local authorities which want their children to be taught in decent school buildings?

Mr. Dunn: On the question of making savings in the education service, I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Audit Commission's report, which found that real savings can be made on the provision for school caretaking, cleaning and meals. I commend that line of action to many local authorities, which are at present not doing enough in that respect.

Vocational Qualifications

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the review of vocational qualifications currently being undertaken by the Manpower Services Commission.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): In paragraph 39 of the White Paper "Education and Training for Young People", Cmnd. 9482, the Government invited the Manpower Services Commission, together with the Departments concerned, to review the range of vocational qualifications offered by educational, professional, and industry-based standard-setting bodies. A group has been established for that purpose under the chairmanship of a distinguished industrialist Mr. Oscar de Ville. The Department of Education and Science is jointly involved with the Manpower Services Commission in servicing the group. An interim report is expected in September, and a final report in April next year.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister tell the House what consultation has taken place with those involved in the colleges and other institutions which provide the appropriate courses, and what action has been taken to overcome the fears of many educationists that this is merely another endeavour by the MSC to undermine standards and quality in education and training?

Mr. Brooke: Regarding the first question, the education service was included in a working group, which, between the publication of the White Paper and my right hon. Friend's announcement in July, worked on the scheme. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is that it is a joint review. The MSC was placed in the lead in the review's establishment because of its responsibilities under the Government for the development of training policy. The review deals with standards of training and competence in industry and vocational education qualifications, such as City and Guilds.

Mr. Lawler: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support in industry for vocational qualifications that are taken at schools, such as the certificate of pre-vocational education, to count towards credits on craft-based qualifications and towards any qualifications that are taken at the end of the two-year YTS scheme?

Mr. Brooke: I assure my hon. Friend that the review which I have mentioned has an interest in qualifications such as the CPVE, not least because of the potential links between that and the youth training scheme.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. O'Brien: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the two-year youth training scheme.

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend has received no direct representations, but the proposals approved by the Government were the subject of extensive consultations with a number of interests.

Mr. O'Brien: Now that the two-year youth training scheme is a permanent feature of education and training, will the Minister take the initiative and support education and our youth by introducing an integrated system for 16 to 19-year-olds? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the injustice and the inconsistency in providing resources for training/education while still denying certain resources and finances for full-time education? Will he take the initiative in removing this anomaly?

Mr. Brooke: The review group is much involved in considering the ability of trainees under the youth training scheme to emerge from the two-year scheme with qualifications. They will have the opportunity of 20 weeks off-the-job training over two years to seek recognised vocational qualifications.

Mr. Haselhurst: Will the establishment of the two-year youth training scheme, which I heartily welcome, bring into sharper focus the relationship between training and education and the argument that has been advanced by many head teachers that perhaps children younger than 16 years could benefit from some of the elements that are contained in a youth training scheme?

Mr. Brooke: I concur with my hon. Friend that, despite statutory differences, 16 years does not in itself represent a borderline and that there are applications at a lower age level.

Teachers (Pay Dispute)

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the teachers' dispute.

Mr. Baldry: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the present teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Evennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current status of the teachers' pay award negotiations.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current state of negotiations in the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current teachers' dispute.

Sir Keith Joseph: I very much regret that this harmful and unnecessary dispute continues. The employers have indicated a willingness to increase what is on offer, if the unions are prepared to show flexibility. For my part, I have offered additional Government resources next year for teachers' pay and to help meet the cost of removing midday supervision from teachers' standard duties provided there is satisfactory progress by October towards our objectives for improving the quality and standards in the schools. Only on this basis are the Government willing to see additional resources made available.

Mr. Nellist: In the Secretary of State's attempts to resolve the teachers' pay dispute, how does he regard one of the Prime Minister's answers last Thursday, which told us that a senior civil servant in the Department of Education and Science is to receive a 30 per cent. rise in his wages, which is six times that which is being offered to the teachers? Was that "helpful" intervention by the Prime Minister naive and stupid, or merely arrogant? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that will stiffen the resolve of teachers and their unions to get a just settlement and a decent wage for teachers?

Sir Keith Joseph: Exactly the same purposes as were being served by the Top Salaries Review Body, most of whose recommendations the Government have accepted, are being served by the additional taxpayers' money which I, on behalf of the Government, have been offering for over a year to transform the teachers' career and promotion structure, if they will only negotiate.

Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, without condoning the strike action that is being taken by some teachers, there are grounds for being concerned about the low level of morale in the profession? Anything that he can say which reiterates his appreciation of the good work that many teachers are doing will be of great comfort to them and to the parents of children at school.

Sir Keith Joseph: I can only repeat what I have said many times, that many teachers do excellent work, often in difficult conditions. As for morale, I wish I could be sure that all teachers realise that the Government have been offering for a year additional taxpayers' money in order to transform promotion and career prospects for teachers.

Mr. Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention to have a well motivated properly remunerated, well rewarded teaching profession which is able to recruit and retain good quality candidates, so that, for example, good quality chemistry graduates may feel that a career in teaching will be attractive? Will my right hon. Friend clearly state the sort of restructuring proposals which he would be able to commend to his colleagues in the Cabinet?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have made it plain for over a year that the Government are prepared to find additional money from the taxpayer in order to transform the promotion prospects of teachers. I hope that the teachers' representatives and the employers will soon get down to negotiating such a package, so that this opportunity to improve the schooling of our children is not lost for the second year running.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he was prepared to accept a higher settlement than that which was publicised, and that it was acceptable to the teachers but was blocked by the Prime Minister? Does he not recognise the strength of feeling among teachers, and that the teachers' case is overwhelmingly supported by parents? How much more damage is he prepared to see done to our schools?

Sir Keith Joseph: I respect the hon. Gentleman, but the first part of his question is based on a complete misconception. The hon. Gentleman is wholly remote from the truth in the suggestion contained in the first part of his question. As to the second part of his question, I wish that he and his colleagues in the Opposition parties would address their minds to the Government's overwhelming priority, which is better schooling for all children of all abilities. That is the great purpose that the Government are seeking to serve, and I hope that the Opposition will give their support to that purpose.

Mr. Proctor: Is it not the case that, in negotiations over many previous years, pay and conditions of employment have not gone together? My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on trying to bring pay and conditions together in these. negotiations.

Sir Keith Joseph: If my hon. Friend is saying that in recent years pay and conditions have not been negotiated together, I regret that that is the truth. I am grateful to him for encouraging the efforts which the Government are making to bring the two together.

Mr. Flannery: When will the Secretary of State face reality? In the Select Committee this morning I told him that if the Government had given the £250 million to the teachers which they gave gratuitously to Johnson Matthey, we would not have all this trouble. Is it not a fact that, as a result of all the money being paid to generals, admirals and top civil servants, the Government do not know where they are? While talking about the subject this morning, the Secretary of State said the opposite to what the Prime Minister said about vouchers. He said that he was against them. The other afternoon the Prime Minister said that she was for them.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is misleading himself. If he looks at the record he will find that in the Select Committee this morning I said that vouchers, after careful examination by the Government, were off the agenda. I have not said I am against them. On the first point, I must seek once again to try to recruit the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the great purpose of improving schooling for the children of all abilities of this country. If yet another year passes with an indiscriminate increase to the teachers and nothing in return negotiated by union leaders, we shall not make progress to what should be a common purpose, namely, better schooling for children of all abilities.

Mr. Fisher: If the purpose behind the pay offer to which the right hon. Gentleman referred earlier is to recruit, retain and motivate people of the right quality, how can that purpose be fulfilled by two such enormously different pay offers as that to the teachers and that to top salaried people? Is that the reason why, at a conference last week, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were greeted with cries of "Rubbish". "Shame" and "Crap" — [Interruption.] Is it not time that the Secretary of State resigned?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a very nice word to use.

Mr. Fisher: I was quoting from a newspaper report, Mr. Speaker.

Sir Keith Joseph: Even if some remarks of mine are not greeted as immediate revealed truth, I still maintain that the purpose behind the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendations and the purpose behind the Government's offer to the teachers of additional taxpayers' money for the right package are precisely the same—to recruit, retain and motivate, in this case, teachers of the right quality.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend disregard the extravagant and crude language of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and look at the offer of remuneration for midday supervision by teachers, which is very valuable? Is there any reason why negotiations on his offer of remuneration to teachers undertaking midday duties should not be started with those teachers and unions prepared to talk?

Sir Keith Joseph: Even from my hon. Friend I am not prepared to see unravelled the package on which the Government's offer of additional money from the taxpayer is based.

Mr. Radice: Can the Secretary of State say whether, in the Cabinet, he supported the decision to give so-called top people very large increases in salaries?

Mr. Maclean: What did Labour do in 1978?

Mr. Radice: Does the right hon. Gentleman even now not understand the outrage of paying his Department's chief civil servant an extra 30 per cent. to supervise a policy of limiting the pay increases of classroom teachers to 6 per cent. at the most? I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, for sheer inconsistency, insensitivity and bad timing, the decision on top people's pay is hard to beat.

Sir Keith Joseph: The answer to the hon Gentleman's first question is yes. The answer to the second part of his question is that in 1978 the Labour Cabinet accepted the recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Body for salary increases of 35 per cent. for the grades covered. Why is what was right for a Labour Government in 1978 wrong for a Conservative Government now?

Mr. Freud: Are not applications to enter teaching training colleges vastly down this year compared with last year, and is that not proof of the argument that we must pay teachers more if we are to attract the right people?

Sir Keith Joseph: Even though the hon. Gentleman's factual assumption is wrong, because broadly the quantity is still at about the same level, he is still right in general to be worried about the quality and types of skills being

recruited to the teaching profession. That is why the Government are concerned to find an answer to the long continued shortage of certain skills in teaching and why we are anxious to make sure that we are recruiting and retaining the right quality and motivation. Those are all reasons why the Government have thought fit for more than a year to offer additional taxpayers' money for a package that will help to achieve all those purposes.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Greg Knight, No. 11. Mr. Michael Colvin, No. 12. Mr. Michael Stern, No. 14.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order afterwards. It takes up time out of questions.

Mr. Thompson: Question No. 8, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I absolutely withdraw. I apologise to the hon. Member.

Burnham Committee

Mr. Patrick Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the present and future representation of teachers and local authority representatives on the Burnham committee.

Sir Keith Joseph: On 2 May I announced my decision to review the composition of the teachers' panel of the Burnham primary and secondary committee. All the teacher unions have now submitted relevant membership figures, which are under consideration within the Department. I expect to complete the review before the end of the calendar year. I have no present plans to make wider changes in repesentation or to the negotiating machinery generally.

Mr. Thompson: While I welcome and support my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 is outdated, that the Burnham structure should be abolished as soon as possible and that a new general teachers' council should have the opportunity to advise on matters of pay structure and assessment?

Sir Keith Joseph: I certainly agree that at present the Burnham structure does not seem to have many friends, but that does not mean that it is obvious what could be put in its place, legislative time permitting, which would be better. Nevertheless, the Government are considering the options and will be glad to receive the views of the local education authorities. I am not able to agree with my hon. Friend that a general teachers' council would necessarily be a reinforcement to educational quality, but I am willing to listen to arguments

Mr. Stanbrook: Is there not a better way of negotiating teachers' salaries in place of one which, when there is a disagreement, does so much damage to the children, the teachers themselves and the parents?

Sir Keith Joseph: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in attaching all those consequences to the structure itself. It is the representatives of some of the teachers' unions who have drawn those damaging consequences upon the children.

Education Prospects

Mr. Stern: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on future prospects for education in the light of the continuing teachers' dispute.

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government's commitment to improved standards remains firm, and we shall continue to pursue the policies for improvement set out in the White Paper "Better Schools" with vigour and determination.

Mr. Stern: In relation to the continuing dispute, will my right hon. Friend confirm that arbitration has been on offer to both sides since virtually the first day of the dispute and that such arbitration, if it took place, would take place in the light of the current circumstances, and with no predisposition to any offer which is now or might be on the table?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is asking me to agree to that which I cannot immediately accept. Arbitration is available, if both sides agree.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the future prospects of the teaching profession and of education depend on an acknowledgment in the House by him that, on present available information, teachers' pay in real terms is below that recommended by Houghton in the mid-1970s? Will he confirm that the present offer still places teachers' salaries, in real terms, below the levels of the Houghton recommendations?

Sir Keith Joseph: I totally reject any idea of a return to comparability. The teachers' increase under Houghton was removed entirely within a very few years, before the end of the life of the then Labour Government, by the inflationary storm to which it helped give rise. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to encourage more inflation which is itself, in the words of his former party Leader, the father and mother of unemployment.

National Union of Teachers

Mr. Barron: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet the leaders of the National Union of Teachers.

Sir Keith Joseph: I had agreed to meet union leaders jointly with employer representatives on 9 May, but the National Union of Teachers declined. I have made plain my readiness to meet representatives of the teachers' side of the Burnham committee to discuss the proposals I made on 21 May.

Mr. Barron: When will there be such a meeting with representatives of the NUT? One is inevitable. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the NUT how the professionalism that he claims for teachers is reflected in his ideological statements about how teachers should teach and what salary they should get? In view of public opinion, much of it from behind the right hon. Gentleman, which we shall hear again later this week, the Secretary of State must be aware that there is a great contradiction between his treatment of members of the NUT and other people.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has made so many points that I do not know where to begin. I am willing to meet representatives of any of the teacher

unions, including the NUT. It is they who are emphasising professionalism, not me. I repeat that the Top Salaries Review Body recommendation was supported by a Labour Government. Why was it right in 1978 and not now?

Mr. Fallon: Would the agenda for such a meeting include the second report of the National Council for Educational Standards? Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on that report's findings?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not want to be tempted too far, but the findings of that report give plenty of ground for thought and analysis.

Teachers (Pay Dispute)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to meet the chairman of the Burnham committee to discuss teachers' pay.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have no present plans to do so.

Mr. Fisher: Without risking quotation, will the Secretary of State seek to gain the agreement of the chairman of the Burnham committee on two points: first, that the dispute should be brought to an end as soon as possible in the interests of children and teachers; and, secondly, that the review body recommendation last week makes that far more difficult to achieve? Will the right hon. Gentleman get the agreement of, or listen to, the chairman of the Burnham committee, who will tell him that only new money from the Government can achieve an end to the dispute? Will the right hon. Gentleman take that on board?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the role of the chairman of the Burnham committee. He fills an entirely independent role and presides over the meetings of the two sides of the committee. He takes no direct part in the negotiations. I am always happy to meet him, but I do not think that such a meeting would contribute directly to a settlement of the dispute.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Burnham committee, will he draw his attention to the fact that these so-called independent review bodies produce more problems than they find answers?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not anticipate a meeting, and certainly not one on the substance of the dispute.

Selective Secondary Education

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his current policy towards the retention of selective secondary education.

Mrs. Rumbold: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards grammar schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend is content with the existing legal framework, which gives freedom to each local education authority to maintain its existing pattern of school organisation and, if it wishes, to propose changes in that pattern. Using this freedom, some local education authorities continue to maintain selective secondary schools. The freedom to submit statutory proposals to reintroduce grammar schools was restored by the Education Act 1979.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that many parents would like the opportunity to consider an alternative? Is he considering any proposals to widen parental choice?

Mr. Dunn: We are always considering proposals to widen parental choice. Our stance is in stark contrast to that of the parties opposite, all of which agree with the abolition of grammar schools and parental choice as Conservative Members understand it.

Mrs. Rumbold: Are there serious plans to reintroduce direct grant grammar schools to help children who are deprived of an excellent education because they come from areas where they are unable to receive an education according to their abilities? If so, when is my hon. Friend likely to produce them?

Mr. Dunn: As I said a few moments ago, we are continuing at all times to consider the various options of organisation available to us. Undoubtedly in the fullness of time certain proposals will be made known, but I am not yet in a position to say what they are.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Can the Minister explain why the Catholic sector in the northern part of the borough of Trafford has no grammar school provision, only secondary modern schools, when Trafford is a selective authority and 40 per cent. of primary school children go on to grammar schools? Does the Minister accept that that effectively reduces the secondary modern schools to "sink" schools?

Mr. Dunn: The Conservative party has always regretted the passing of the grammar and direct grant schools. I assume from what the hon. Gentleman said that he is in favour of the total abolition of selective schools in the borough of Trafford.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Boyes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Prime Minister aware that her Minister for Housing and Construction, speaking in Newcastle last week, described the board and lodging accommodation used by homeless people as bad, badly managed and filthy? I prefer the description squalid, exploitation and humiliation. Will the right hon. Lady turn her attention to the conditions in which the vast majority of those using such accommodation live and introduce new laws to enforce satisfactory conditions?

The Prime Minister: On the whole, housing accommodation in this country has improved during the lifetime of this Government. That is a fact. The hon. Gentleman referred to the supplementary benefit board and lodging payments. He is aware that it will be a matter for debate in the House later this week.

Sir Edward du Cann: As the British merchant fleet now carries only one quarter of the total of United Kingdom trade—a statistic which has the most alarming implications for our economy and defence—will my

right hon. Friend take time during the recess to send for and study the report now being prepared in the Ministry of Defence in response to requests, complaints and anxieties voiced on both sides of the House, with a view to proposing, I hope, early remedial action?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am very much aware of the importance of a merchant fleet to the defence of this country. I am taking a close interest in the report being prepared by the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Hattersley: Since the Government have awarded pay increases of up to 46 per cent. to safeguard the quality and morale of generals, judges and civil servants, why will they not allow the additional 1 per cent. which would have the same effect on teachers and help resolve the present damaging dispute?

The Prime Minister: This year the Government have implemented the review body reports on nurses and midwives, at a total cost in a full year of £314 million, on doctors and dentists, at a total cost of £122 million, on the armed forces at a total cost of £205 million, and the Top Salaries Review Body proposals at a total cost of £10 million. We have implemented all the reports of the review bodies.
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, because he was a member of a Government who similarly implemented such reports, there is an understanding that successive Governments have accepted that recommendations would not be modified unless there were clear and compelling reasons to do so. These have been modified only by being staged where necessary—otherwise all have been treated in the same way.

Mr. Hattersley: If the Prime Minister is so attracted by the 1978 precedent, why has she not chosen to follow it in staging this pay award over three years or more? Why has she disregarded the 1978 precedent, when an inquiry was simultaneously set up into the problems of low pay in the public service? That issue seems to interest the Prime Minister not at all. All that she means, when she quotes the figures, is that she is prepared to subsidise extravagance for the rich but will not afford justice for the generality of people. Has she no understanding that social justice must play a part in economic policy and that if it does not that economic policy is doomed, as the right hon. Lady has demonstrated in the last six years? Will she now answer a simple question — [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] — about the social justice? Will she justify a policy which authorises massive pay increases for the well-to-do on one day and abolishes wages council protection for the very poor on the next?

The Prime Minister: The 1978 report recommended in July 1978 that that report be staged and completed by April 1980—July 1978 to April 1980—whereas this report says:
We urge the Government to implement our recommendations in full.
I emphasise "in full." That is quite different from what the right hon. Gentleman said. Nevertheless, we have staged the payments; nothing from April, half from July and the rest from March. To answer the other points that the right hon. Gentleman made, the 1978 report gave average increases of 35 per cent., whereas this report on the Civil Service gives average increases of 12·2 per cent.

Mr. Hattersley: Now answer my question.

The Prime Minister: Although those were average increases of 35 per cent. — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions and I intend to answer them.

Mr. Hattersley: Go on, answer them.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is pointless for right hon. and hon. Members to tell the Prime Minister to answer the question when she is seeking to do so.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), as a member of the then Labour Government, accepted that report, as did Labour Members then supporting that Government, and as The Times commented the next day:
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer received general support from Labour MPs for the big increases in pay recommended by the Boyle Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman is guilty of cant and humbug.

Mr. Hattersley: The House and the country will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to answer the question that I put to her, from which we must assume confirmation of what we know already, that social justice is not a consideration that enters into the thinking of her party.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's questions were answered, and he does not like that. He was a member of a Government who accepted average increases for the top of the Civil Service, the top salaries review, of 35 per cent. We, on the same basis, have accepted average increases of 12·2 per cent. The whole of the Labour party supported those increases — [Interruption.] — as did the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is now Leader of the SDP, and as did the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who was engaged on the Lib-Lab pact. They supported them because they were reasonable salaries for people with onerous duties to carry out and because they were necessary to retain, recruit and motivate those people.

Sir John Farr: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir John Farr: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study the disgraceful and misleading film on the police that has been produced by the GLC? Does she think it right that ratepayers' money should have been spent in this way? Is there any way in which she can prevent members of the public having the film thrust upon them, particularly people in schools and youth clubs, where it is due to be circulated free of charge?

The Prime Minister: I have seen many pamphlets connected with this matter and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has paid great attention to them. I believe that Londoners will recognise them as the crude political propaganda that they are. It is another reason why the majority of Londoners will be grateful that the Local Government Act, the measure to abolish the GLC, has now passed all its stages.

Dr. Owen: The 1978 Top Salaries Review Body contributed to the sense of unfairness that led to the winter of discontent in 1979 — [Interruption.] There is not much hope for hon. Members if we cannot learn from mistakes. I ask the Prime Minister whether she can learn from anything that has been done by anyone else. The sure lesson is that pay comparability with the private sector for top civil servants is all right, but that it is not all right for other civil servants. The right hon. Lady's Government abolished the independent pay research body. That is indefensible. Will the Prime Minister explain what is now to be done about the civil service grades which hitherto have been deprived of comparability?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman fully supported the review body when he was Foreign Secretary, in order to stay Foreign Secretary, but he now contemptuously disowns it in opposition.

Dr. Owen: Is it not possible to make a mistake?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman deserves to be treated with utter contempt.

Mr. Amery: May we have an estimate of how much of the £10 million that is to be paid in top salaries will return to the Exchequer in income tax? Does my right hon. Friend agree that since hon. Members on both sides of the House have voted to improve their financial position they should have some humility in discussing this matter?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give my right hon. Friend a precise estimate. He is aware that the top rate of tax is 60 per cent. The numbers in the Civil Service top grades have been substantially reduced during this Government's lifetime. A total of 814 people were in the top posts when we came to power; now only 654 are in post. Numbers have been substantially reduced. That grade of people costs the country less in real terms now than when we came to power.

Mrs. René Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that the West Midlands region, one of the most densely populated regions in the country, has 100 fewer consultants in post than the national average? Is she further aware that the region has issued a priority list of 40 consultant posts which it wants to fill immediately? Will she use her influence with the Secretary of State for Social Services to ensure that resources are made available to make those appointments?

The Prime Minister: The last Labour Government set up the Resource Allocations Working Party and we have continued it. The object was to ensure that the Health Service was as similar as possible in terms of service to people in all areas of the country. That causes problems to hospitals from which resources are removed. Sometimes we do not achieve the credit deserved from hospitals to which resources are given. If there is a discrepancy, as the hon. Lady suggests, I assume that it will be dealt with by the Resource Allocations Working Party.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bruinvels: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on successfully concluding the extradition treaty with Spain.


Is it not intolerable that British criminals now residing in Spain will get away with their crimes because the legislation is not retrospective? Will my right hon. Friend call an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister of Spain to arrange for such criminals to be booted out, to come back to this country to face the consequences of their illegal acts?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his team of officials on the way in which they have negotiated this extradition treaty with Spain. Although, as my hon. Friend said, it will not be retrospective, it will apply to anyone who enters or re-enters Spanish territory after it comes into force. Some of the United Kingdom fugitives in Spain may have to leave the country and re-enter to renew their residential permits. Others may be affected by a new law which gives the Spanish authorities stronger powers to expel undesirable aliens, so it should be an effective treaty.

Mr. Molyneaux: Has the Prime Minister read early-day motion No. 921, and if so does she accept the constitutional principle that it asserts?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to talks that are at present continuing between the Government in Dublin and the Government in the United Kingdom. He will be aware of the communiqué that was issued after Chequers, and of the full constitutional position, which protects the Unionists in Northern Ireland. Discussions continue, and should any agreement be reached, it will be a matter for debate in the House.
Later—

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member's point concerned with questions?

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, may I revert to the question that was put to the Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), when he sought to cane hon. Members for doing rather well out of the previous pay review body? In case it may be misunderstood, may I put it on the record——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a continuation of Question Time, and the hon. Gentleman, who has been here much longer than I have, must know that that is not in order.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: rose——

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) knows that the whole House disapproves of the practice of continuing Question Time. I am sorry that he was not called.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that we have a great deal of work ahead of us this week., and there is an end of term atmosphere in the Chamber today, but you may have noticed, as I did, that during the early questions on education, when there were few Members in the Chamber, it was nevertheless very difficult to hear the contributions of one or two Members. I am sure that other hon. Members had the same difficulty. Similar difficulties must have been experienced in the Public and Press Galleries. That being so, is it possible to remind hon. Members that they are professional public speakers, and that everyone is entitled to hear what they have to say?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the House has any difficulty in hearing the hon. Member.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Further to my point of order——

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I were to be successful in catching your eye during Question Time and were to pose a question related to someone else's supplementary question and tried to introduce a new topic, you would rightly correct and admonish me.
Bearing in mind the fact that there were howls of outrage from Conservative Members when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) merely mentioned the name of an American card game, will you, Mr. Speaker, as guardian and protector of the Chamber, do something when the Prime Minister waffles on ad nauseum about any topic other than the subject of the question? Can you constrain her to confine herself to the subject?

Mr. Speaker: I am protector of the Back Benches, but today the Prime Minister was called upon to answer a somewhat lengthy question from the Opposition Front Bench. That is fair enough.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, a totally different point of order?

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Yes, Sir. Can you confirm for me that we had to wait five years, because our pay rise was phased over a whole Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot remember.

Corporal Punishment

The following questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about corporal punishment in schools.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): The Government will not proceed further with the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill during this Session and will now consider the appropriate course for the next Session.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that at the moment any teacher who applies corporal punishment to any pupil without the parents' consent would be extremely foolish and would be unprofessional, as he would be in contempt of the European Court ruling? Will he also confirm that it could lead to the Government spending anything up to £120,000—the equivalent of 13 or 14 teachers' salaries—in defending such a case, and to the pupil receiving substantial damages? Will the Secretary of State make it clear that no teacher should apply corporal punishment where the parents disapprove? As the Conservative party claims always to be the upholder of law and order, what steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to implement the court ruling, as the Government have already had four years to consider this matter?

Sir Keith Joseph: The teachers, along with all other citizens, are subject to the law of the land. As for the options before the Government, I have told the House that we are considering, for the next Session, which of the options to take.

Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, many people in the teaching profession and many parents are pleased that the Bill is going no further? Does he further accept this does not represent some silly, Left-wing plot, and that corporal punishment is not the prerogative of the far Right? Is it not time that far more sense was talked about this issue in the House.

Sir Keith Joseph: I must say in support of my hon. Friend—although only to a limited extent—that there are many parents and teachers who, on the whole, would prefer that the right of moderate corporal punishment should remain within the decision of parents and teachers. That having been said, we have an obligation to the Court, to which we have subscribed, and the Government are considering the options.

Mr. Clement Freud: Now that the Bill is not going through, which we welcome, will the Secretary of State for Education and Science devote the time that he would have spent on Third Reading and Report to resolving the teachers' pay dispute?

Sir Keith Joseph: I wish that my time alone could solve the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Fred Silvester: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to the suggestion of the Opposition, the present law is as it always was and that nothing that has come out of Strasbourg changes the position of this country?

Sir Keith Joseph: That is what I tried to say in answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who asked this question.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not utterly disgraceful that the Government should have introduced such an unworkable Bill which everbody knew, ultimately, they would have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to get rid of? I see that on the Front Bench Ministers are smiling, but did we not in the Standing Committee warn them of the unworkability of the Bill? Is this not proof that the vast majority of the Government's policies are similarly unworkable and that they should withdraw all of them?

Sir Keith Joseph: In fact, the Bill passed its Second Reading in the other place without a Division.

Mr. Michael Latham: Now that he is quite rightly dropping this ludicrous Bill, will my right hon. Friend look at another option that he rejected on Second Reading, which is to do nothing?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend gets a certain amount of support for suggesting that which this country has never done, that is, to break a treaty obligation.

Mr. David Young: Has the Secretary of State taken on board the fact that he was warned on Second Reading that his Bill was completely unworkable? Now that he has had recourse to common sense, will he give instructions that no corporal punishment will take place until there has been another debate in this House?

Sir Keith Joseph: Even if I wished to do so, I have no such power. It is this House that controls, subject to the courts, the law. As for common sense, I never pretended that the exemption proposals that lay behind the Bill were without problems. But abolition has its problems, too, since we should not like to override the views of a large minority, if it be a minority, of parents and teachers who would prefer to keep the option.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that corporal punishment is an essential and vital sanction in schools? Does he not also accept that, without discipline and structure, little progress can be made in education? Will he therefore introduce legislation into this House to enable corporal punishment to continue in our schools, in accordance with the wishes of the majority of teachers and parents?

Sir Keith Joseph: I should like to agree with my hon. Friend, but there are two reasons why I cannot do so. First, many schools seem to achieve order and discipline without the use of corporal punishment. Secondly, we have a treaty obligation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would it not be fair to say that the Secretary of State has deserved and got, in his own words, a moderate thrashing on this subject? What has he learned?

Sir Keith Joseph: I have learned a proper sense of respect for the decisions of both Houses of this sovereign Parliament.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept, without


mincing words, that one of the root causes of football crowd disorder and complete lack of respect for authority is the lack of discipline in the home and definitely in the schools? If that is accepted, would it not be sensible, for once, to defy the conventions of Europe and reintroduce corporal punishment into our schools to try to restore order and discipline to this country?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend's objective, but I do not quite share his self confidence in the diagnosis.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State not agree that the freedom of parental choice in these matters, which was secured by the European Court, should not be put in question by any further decision of the Government about the right of petition to the Commission which the Government will have to take in the next Session of Parliament? Will he give a guarantee that, whatever may be the Government's views about renewing the right of individual petition, he will bring the law of this land into conformity with the judgment of the European Court?

Sir Keith Joseph: If we did not accept such an obligation, we would not have introduced the Bill and I would not have spoken of deciding which option we should follow next Session.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole episode is a tribute to the wisdom of the other place, and that the role played by the Upper House in our constitution has been more than amply fulfilled by this excellent example? Therefore, will he give very long and careful thought before introducing any other Bill which could run into the same common sense in the Upper House?

Sir Keith Joseph: I say yes, with qualifications, to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I can agree with the second part.

Mr. Reg Freeson: In all seriousness, is it not a sad commentary on Britain, which has such a proud record of civilised values and standing, that almost alone among west European countries we should still be debating this issue? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman introduce a one clause Bill to abolish corporal punishment, and fall in line with all other civilised practices?

Sir Keith Joseph: That would run against the views of a substantial minority of parents and teachers, and I think that this House should hesitate before encouraging the Government to do that.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his job would be much easier if we gave six months' notice to leave the EEC?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend's comment would be more suitably addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I have heard it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of parents and teachers are opposed to the abolition of corporal punishment, particularly until suitable alternatives have been thought out? Will he resist Labour and Liberal party pressure which is designed to take us to a Swedish situation in which five-year-old children are encouraged to take their parents to court for smacking them?

Sir Keith Joseph: There is ample evidence from this short debate that the differences of opinion here are reflected in the country as well.

Royal Dockyards (Devonport and Rosyth)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the royal dockyards, at Devonport and Rosyth.
On 17 April I outlined a number of options for the future management of the dockyards which have an annual turnover of over £400 million. They ranged from a trading fund in the public sector to full privatisation.
I said at the time that the Government's preferred strategy was for a scheme of commercial management and I initiated a period of consultation with a view to a final decision before Parliament rose for the summer recess. I have now had the opportunity to consider the many representations submitted during the consultation period, including the timely reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Defence.
There is almost unanimous agreement that a significant change is needed in the way that the dockyards are run. Indeed, the House will be aware that action has been called for in reports associated with the Mallabar committee in 1971, with Hughes in 1973, with Brightling in 1978 and with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) in 1980. Last year we had the PAC stating:
We regard determined—and if need be radical—action as essential to resolve the fundamental issues still outstanding".
But little has happened as a consequence of the reports, as there was no agreement on how to proceed.
The option of a trading fund would not, in the Government's view, go far enough in freeing management and work force from the restrictions and interference of Government. Full privatisation today, on the other hand, would leave the Government with insufficient influence over a major establishment in the defence field at a time of considerable transition.
Commercial management, on the other hand, has the advantage of freeing the local management from the more restrictive public sector constraints and of enabling the private sector to seek to expand the opportunities in the areas concerned, while retaining a significant degree of accountability to the Royal Navy and particularly of securing a climate of maximum competition.
The option of commercal management remains therefore the Government's preferred solution and we intend to proceed along these lines. I should tell the House that I am much influenced by the fact that this is also the preferred solution of the Navy itself.
The Government are convinced that the right way ahead is to retain ownership of the fixed assets and to bring in commercial management to run them. I therefore intend to seek competitive tenders from competent British companies to manage the dockyards. These tenders, which would be for a period of some years, would be evaluated for their management and pricing proposals and would be expected to contain a strong incentive element. I am encouraged by the number of companies that have shown interest in these proposals, including those of the stature of Babcocks, Balfour Beatty, Costain, Plessey, STC, Trafalgar House, the Weir Group and other major industrial concerns acting either alone or in consortia.
I hope to introduce the necessary legislation as early as possible, with the intention of introducing commercial management no later than 1 April 1987.
Regardless of the longer-term management structure for the dockyards, there must be improvements in efficiency in the dockyards now. These will involve reductions in jobs. We believe that the majority of these will be achieved by means of natural wastage and voluntary redundancy. Compulsory redundancies will be kept to the minimum possible.
I should tell the House that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement has informed my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that we are making available to the trade unions today a consultative document proposing how best we might improve efficiency in the Marine Services organisation.
In view of the extra work associated with the Trident programme, the problems at Rosyth will be relatively small and shortlived. But there will be a special problem at Devonport. We have already embarked upon a programme to help. We have set up a Devonport development unit which will be the focal point for the activity necessary to generate new jobs, and I have announced our immediate intention to make available for development two small but significant areas of land in prime positions in the city. My Department is examining its expenditure profile with a view to identifying any opportunities for expanding local commercial activity. We are looking urgently at the potential of the historic and attractive site at Royal William yard for development and the creation of employment. It should be possible also to identify other opportunities for expansion.
Each dockyard will have a core programme of essential work as the basis for its long-term future. Commercial management will ensure that that work is carried out in as cost effective a way as possible and that, through greater efficiency, the dockyards are in a position to win orders in a wider market than at present and expand their activities.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's statement is at least predictable, because, for the second time in a few weeks, he has demonstrated his total contempt for a unanimous report of a Select Committee, which found that there was no evidence for the proposals that he and his Department have put forward. Even worse, the slipshod, cavalier, irresponsible and "inept"—as the Select Committee said—way in which the right hon. Gentleman has treated the royal dockyards has been deeply insulting to those in the Royal Navy who are so dependent upon the expertise of the yards and to the thousands who work in Devonport and Rosyth, who have served the Navy and this country with such dedication and skill over many years, many of whom will apparently join the dole queues in Devonport and Rosyth.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his statements about the Navy — he has produced no evidence to show that the Navy prefers this solution—almost no person in the Royal Navy, the dockyards or the Civil Service would agree, if he were honest, with the right hon. Gentleman's plans? Indeed, the only enthusiasts left are the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Peter Levene, whose slipshop and shoddy report, produced earlier this year, would not have obtained a D-grade at O-level.
Did not the right hon. Gentleman mislead the House on 17 April when he said:
The proposal is based upon American experience."—[Official Report, 17 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 263.]
As was known then, and as the Select Committee has shown, the naval dockyards in the United States are operative in the public sector through a trading fund. If the right hon. Gentleman did not know that, a telephone call or perhaps a quick VC10 flight to his friend Caspar Weinberger would have told him of the realities. Is it not the case that the figures that the right hon. Gentleman's Department cobbled together for the Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee bear as much relation to realism as the figures contained in a balance sheet of Johnson Matthey Bankers? Is it not a fact that the managerial, accounting and commercial problems in the dockyards—we accept that there are problems—could all have been solved within the public sector without going down this ridiculous road, which will make matters much worse?
The Secretary of State should have had the courage and the grace to accept that he has made a mess of these proposals. He should have accepted that nothing can be done to revive them, taken them away and brought back proposals to make the development and operation of the dockyards better, and not worse, as these proposals will do.

Mr. Heseltine: Of course, I have to reject all the right hon. Gentleman's assertions. This matter has been under active political review by various Governments for a long time. There is now almost universal agreement, first, that the way in which we are managing and accounting for public money on a large scale is wholly unacceptable and, secondly, that there is a need for action. The Government are facing up to the logic of that imperative and taking the decisions that are necessary.
The House may wish to judge the effectiveness of the right hon. Gentleman's response. He talks about the dole queues in Rosyth, but the Labour party is committed to abandoning Trident, on which employment in that area depends. When he has the effrontery to talk about the honesty of those who advised me, as if the Admiralty Board was acting in any interests except those of the Royal Navy, he shows the complete contempt that the Labour prty has for the Armed Services.
The Labour party had every chance to grip the matter when it was in power, but it examined the position and made no decisions. In 1978, having looked at the option of a trading fund, the Labour Government announced that there would be no decision to make progress. Once again the Labour party ran away. It is now desperately trying to oppose what we are doing, although it had no proposals and no integrity to deal with issues of public administration.

Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be greeted with satisfaction by many of those both serving in, and with recent experience at the head of, the Royal Navy? Will he assure the House that at the end of the day sufficient refit capability will remain for our 17 hunter-killer nuclear submarines and our new Trident submarines when, in due course, they need to be refurbished?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who takes a wholly constructive view of

these matters, and I can give him the assurance that he requires. However, I must say that I am equally concerned that that capability should exist, whether in the various areas surrounding Rosyth and Devonport, or in other areas that have levels of unemployment that are as high, if not higher. Delegations from such areas continually come to my office asking us to put more refit work into the less privileged parts of the north of England and Scotland.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Public Accounts Committee commented on the savings as a percentage of annual operating costs, which may be as little as 1 per cent. within the margin of error? What does he estimate the net savings as a percentage of annual operating costs to be?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman, who has a great responsibility to account to the House for these matters, will know the difficulties of trying to be wholly accurate in predicting large sums and the changes therein, especially against the background of having to negotiate both with the unions about enhanced efficiency, and with contractors, who will seek to drive the deal that most suits their natural interests. We must be sure, therefore, that we do not put on the table a range of figures that we believe to be possible but which those with whom we must negotiate will see as an opportunity to drive an even harder bargain.
The initial figures that we had in mind, which were based on a 20 per cent. efficiency gain, suggested savings of about £12 million a year rising to £18 million after 10 years. That was about 3 per cent. rising to 4·5 per cent. of turnover of £400 million. In our view that is the worst case, and there are much more optimistic scenarios. A later assessment based on the likelihood of greater efficiency gains showed gains of about £24 million to £26 million a year, rising to about £29 million or £33 million, which is 6 to 7·5 per cent. of turnover.

Miss Janet Fookes: Does my right hon. Friend understand that many of my constituents will find his decision perverse in the extreme since it flies in the face of all the advice offered to him by two Select Committees and many other organisations in Plymouth, including the report of the accountants Peat Marwick Mitchell? Does he also understand that many of the misgivings arise from the fact that there is likely to be a change in leadership at regular intervals if he follows the original plan in the consultative document? What does he mean by "some years", which is an enigmatic phrase, yet a key one?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a real interest in the proposals that we have in mind. I am anxious to keep closely in touch with local feelings. The House will understand that there is a legitimate difference between the essentially local interests of those who represent Devonport, who must be interested in securing the largest possible cash flow into that economy, and the interests of those who have to administer the national purse, which in this context is the defence budget. I have to be sure that the country's interests are regarded by obtaining competitive prices and ensuring that I obtain value far: money for the defence budget.
My hon. Friend's remark about the perversity of the decision in the light of the evidence has to be tempered by


the fact that I have received a range of views from those who think that there is considerable benefit from commercial management. These views are expressed by companies that are prepared to become involved in the negotiating process to secure that management. They argue in favour of the proposals. I have to consider the views of the Admiralty Board, which believes that these are the best proposals for the Navy which, after all, is the customer.
I assure my hon. Friend that I understand the concerns that are being expressed locally. I hope that the work that we are doing in the Ministry to try to help further job creation in the area will be seen as our determination to look after that interest. I have also to consider wider defence interests, and I believe that they will be best served by the way in which the Government will decide the matter.

Dr. David Owen: Surely the Secretary of State will accept that the devastating criticism of the Public Accounts Committee has nothing to do with local interests and that no member serving on that Committee had any local interest. The contemptuous brushing aside of the Committee's recommendations and criticisms, and those of the Select Committee on Defence, makes most people believe that the consultative process has been the sham that many predicted at the start. Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear what he means by
I hope to introduce the necessary legislation".
Will the legislation be introduced in the next Session? If not, will the Government be able to meet 1 April 1987?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has not been out of Government for so long as to have forgotten that conventions are observed by Ministers when announcing future programmes. It would not be right for me to announce the contents of the Queen's Speech. It is our intention to proceed as fast as we can but in a manner that is compatible with achieving the introduction date that I have mentioned.
I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's contention that the consultative process has been a sham. The issue has been under consideration for nearly 15 years and little new argumentation has emerged during the period in which the issue has been at the forefront of public concern. Until now, Governments have failed to take decisions, and I must take into account the words used by the PAC, that there is a need for "radical" and urgent action. We intend to take that action and we are not prepared to run away from the issue, which the Labour Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, did consistently.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House that, in any redundancy there may be in Devonport, the employment of those who have served there over many years will take priority over those who have been moved there from Chatham to try to reduce the Government's embarrassment when Chatham was closed? No such transfers must be allowed to take precedence over the claims of those who have put a lifetime of work into Devonport.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue and I shall give it my personal and urgent consideration. I hope that the rundown in jobs that will be

necessary to attract the increased efficiency that we want will be secured, to the greatest extent possible, by voluntary redundancy and natural wastage.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The Secretary of State claims widespread support for the significant change that is proposed. Is he aware that the relevant trade unions are on record as saying that they are not opposed to change provided that it takes place in the proper consultative atmosphere? He has said also that the problems of Rosyth would be small and shortlived. Is he not minimising, and therefore jeopardising, the maintenance programme of the ballistic nuclear force? Is he sure that his proposals will not impair the Navy's flexibility to cope with emergency work, which was so admirably demonstrated at the time of the Falklands crisis?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is familiar with these issues and they were considered carefully by the Admiralty board before it made its recommendations to me. The board judged that in all the circumstances the relevant factors had been taken into consideration and that it could still advise me to proceed in the way that I did.
The hon. Gentleman has asked me about the attitude of the unions that are concerned. Whenever change is proposed that involves a transfer from the public sector to the private sector, the unions are opposed to it. There is nothing new in that, for that is the essence of their political faith. I respect their entitlement to have those views. However, if I have the feeling that such views are expressed for doctrinal reasons as against practical reasons, I am entitled to take that into account. Whenever the Government privatise something, the unions forecast doom and gloom, and every time they are proved wrong.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the superb contribution made by the naval yards at the time of the Falklands war demonstrates the performance of which are capable? Does that not contrast sharply with the poor level of efficiency and serious level of absenteeism at the Rosyth and Devonport yards. Does he accept that it should be possible for the naval yards to benefit from privatisation in much the same way as other industries have? Surely management, workers and customers should benefit alike?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have written today to all the dockyards' employees urging them to recognise the constructive opportunities that are now on offer. After the warship building yards were nationalised there were no new sales of frigates. Before nationalisation we had an export market in frigates. Private warship builders in Germany have been selling frigates consistently and we have been failing to do so. Obsessive slavery to the concept of public ownership is positively inimical to the interests of the workers concerned.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Secretary of State for Defence, who today sounds more like the Secretary of State for defence of the private sector, explain his enthusiasm for these high-cost and high-risk proposals, which have been rejected by every committee that has considered them since the second world war, and which subordinate the interests of national security to those of commercial gain? Will he tell us how many loyal civil servants, recently and rightly praised by Sir Henry


Leach, Admiral of the Fleet now retired, for their professional alacrity, will be summarily dismissed if these unpatriotic proposals go ahead?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the private sector responded just as magnificently as the public sector when we had to face the Falklands crisis. As I said to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), it is nothing short of scandalous to believe that the Admiralty Board would put the interests of private contractors above Britain's defence interests.

Mr. Barry Henderson: What proportion of the work force at Rosyth depends on the maintenance of the submarine independent nuclear deterrent, which the Labour party will abolish? What reduction is anticipated in the work force after these measures become effective and how will it compare with the 1979 measures? Finally, what is the length of contract that is envisaged under these proposals?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the work involved in arriving at the agreed detail of the contract is extremely lengthy and complex. We must now make progress on that and we shall keep the House fully in touch. The detailed examination of any legislation that is introduced will enable the House to be kept informed.
I understand that about 40 per cent. of the Rosyth work force is employed on the nuclear deterrent. We have announced recently large extensions in the amount of work that is to be concentrated at Rosyth in connection with the Trident programme. The potential job losses at Rosyth and Devonport, which come from the management measures to which I have referred, are those that I produced to the House in April when discussing dockyard reorganisation. On that occasion, I spoke of about 2,000 job losses in the 13,000 work force at Devonport and about 400 job losses among the 6,300 who comprise the Rosyth work force.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is the Secretary of State seriously inviting privatised warship yards such as, potentially, Swan Hunter to tender for work that is now carried out solely at the naval dockyards?

Mr. Heseltine: I think it right and in the best interests of the country for there to be a competitive environment in which companies such as Swan Hunter have the opportunity to tender for the maintenance and repair work of the Royal Navy. Undoubtedly they would be interested in such work. I have seen experiments conducted in respect of frigates and submarines recently and contractors outside the Devonport and Rosyth dockyards are carrying out the work. A competitive environment must be in the interests of workers in different parts of the country and it is certainly in the interests of the defence budget.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is it not a fact that the agency management concept is speculative and non-proven, in that nowhere in the world is there a comparable model on the scale envisaged? In view of the lack of substantive evidence since the publication of the consultative document, does my right hon. Friend think that is the way to treat the defence and security of this country?

Mr. Heseltine: I realise that my hon. Friend must press me in the interests of his constituents——

Dr. Owen: That is a shameful reply.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will discover whether it is a shameful reply. I am going to answer his question carefully. I have talked to him about these matters and I do not seek to make party capital out of them, unlike the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). If the right hon. Member for Devonport cared about his constituency he would have taken steps to ensure that there were efficiency gains when he had the power to do something about it, as opposed to supporting a Government who ran away from every major issue that confronted them in the management of the dockyards. It is a classic example of the right hon. Member. He wants it both ways on every conceivable occasion as long as he is not asked to make any real decisions about any thing.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heseltine: At least the hon. Member ought to agree with me about that.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, get stuck into him.

Mr. Heseltine: This must be the most unholy alliance this Parliament has ever seen. If I could come back to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must hear the answer to the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks).

Mr. Heseltine: I am glad to see that the right hon. Member has run out of arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) says that there is no precedent for this anywhere in the world. It is true that there is no example known to me where a dockyard is managed by commercial contract, but the precedents I have looked at are defence establishments in the United States, which have more people employed, are in the defence industries and which operate a commercial management arrangement. If, for example, General Dynamics can manage production employing 16,000 people on the F-16, there is no issue of principle in saying that one cannot manage a dockyard on the same lines.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Representing, as I do, some of those who work at Rosyth, may we return to the question that the Secretary of State's hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) very properly put on behalf of her constituents? What exactly is meant by the sentence:
These tenders, which would be for a period of some years"?
Perhaps I could explain the problem. In the west Lothian area we have the problem of Plessey, one of the firms that the Secretary of State mentioned. In complicated circumstances, with which I will not bore the House withdrew. How are we to know that on the banks of the Forth the same thing will not happen again?

Mr. Heseltine: Because we would not be prepared to enter into contracts with anything other than extremely substantial companies, and there would be contractual liabilities and commitments to ensure that such a situation did not develop. My hon. Friend was quite right to ask her question and I should like to take the opportunity now to answer it. We have yet to finalise the precise date of the contract and, in a sense, it must be influenced by the nature of the element of competitive pricing within the first contract we draw. We have certainly talked in terms of five years minimum, and there was a suggestion that we should go for longer periods. I expect to keep the House informed


on this matter as the discussions proceed. It must be in our interests not only to get a competitive environment, but to get a degree of stability into the areas concerned.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will endeavour to call hon. Members who have been standing if they have a constituency interest or a direct interest through the Select Committees. Could I ask for brief questions, please?

Mr. Michael Marshall: As a member of the Select Committee I was one of those who listed some anxieties and questions to my right hon. Friend in our report. Will he say that he still hopes to address his mind to those questions? On the specific point about the period for commercial management, will he accept that the vast majority of industry—that known to me at any rate—is concerned that five years is far too short? It is not sufficient time on which to obtain a return on that sort of investment and could lead to major problems about work in progress and transition if another company is licensed to carry on. Does he accept this is a serious point and that a longer period appears to be vital?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is quite right. Those points have been put to us by industry, but one would expect industry to look to the longest possible period before it has to face the competitive challenge of an alternative contractor. A balance must be struck, but I am not unsympathetic to a longer period, provided the competitive disciplines and the costing arrangements are sufficiently sharp to meet the national interest. I will bear that in mind. Of course, the Government will be responding to the Select Committee on Defence and to the Public Accounts Committee in the proper way.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Gentleman sneers and jeers in his usual offensive fashion against any of those who were members of previous Governments. Will he not take into account that it was the provision for the royal dockyards and for their maintenance as such which enabled them to perform great achievements during the Falklands war and thereby to contribute to the safety of the nation? That has been one's experience of the royal dockyards in every crisis the nation has had to face. What right has he as a twopenny-ha'penny cheapjack to come along and say, "We will hand them over to commercial interests"? Will he not listen to the people who know something about it? When is he going to face the people in Devonport dockyards and hear what they have to say?

Mr. Heseltine: I give the right hon. Gentleman the unqualified assurance that I will listen to people who know something about it, but this nation made quite clear what it thought about his ability to know something about it.

Hon. Members: Cheap.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us keep the temperature down.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend agree——

Mr. Skinner: The Secretary of State is only a privatised soldier: he bought himself out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Griffiths.

Mr. Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement today will provide a sense of purpose and direction which has been lacking in the royal naval dockyards for many years? The statement will therefore be widely welcomed. In his comments about the opportunities available for contracts outside the naval dockyards, will he say whether this includes fleet maintenance bases such as Portsmouth?

Mr. Heseltine: The statement I made today covers the two specific dockyards. The maritime services consultation document which I also announced will extend across the country at large, outside the dockyards as well as within them. I have no doubt that there will be examples relevant to Portsmouth, but I will confirm that to my hon. Friend. I appreciate the thought behind his question, because within the dockyards there is great anxiety about being faced with change. But there is a great willingness to recognise that change is necessary, and a great sense of dedication and frustration, which can be put to great opportunity for the benefit of the local economies.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman will, in due course, get his own come-uppance, however insulting he may be to former Ministers. But, to my question, Mr. Speaker. To safeguard the public interest, will it be made a requirement that all of the tenderers for management of the docks shall make no contribution hereafter to Tory party funds?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) means that as seriously as a suggestion that any trade unions involved in the dockyards should make no contribution to Labour party funds.

Viscount Cranborne: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no similar plans for the dockyard at Portland in my constituency, and that the jobs at Portland will be preserved against the drafting-in of long-service people from Tiverton and Rosyth?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot refuse to give my hon. Friend an encouraging answer in the light of the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I will have to look at these matters, but I can give him an unqualified assurance in the terms of the question he asked that I have no plans before me at present to deal with the installation in his constituency.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State will be well aware that the Select Committee took the view that the Government should not adopt the option of commercial management unless they could demonstrate that the advantages of a trading fund, subject to modification, were outweighed by commercial management. Despite that, the option of the trading fund was dismissed in one simple sentence, to the effect that it did not go far enough in freeing management from restrictions and interference by the Government.
What evidence has the Secretary of State for that, apart from blind dogma? What are these interferences and restrictions, no doubt within his own Department, which he is incapable of resolving?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that the option of a trading fund has been looked at time and time again. It has been looked at by this Government and by the previous Government. The previous Government decided not to proceed with the trading fund, and they published their decision in 1978.
One of the reasons why it is so difficult to see the commercial opportunity within a trading fund is simply that the restrictions of the public sector in terms of union negotiations, pay claims and gradings in various areas impose a constraint on management from which it is very difficult to break. If we are looking for the opportunity for the real development of a facility such as the dockyards, we are far better to have local autonomy, local decision-taking, local management and local unions seeking out the markets that suit them, without the need constantly to refer these matters to central Government.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a royal naval workshop in my constituency. He will also be aware that a number of royal naval officers who serve on Her Majesty's submarines also live in my constituency and, down the years, they have complained about the management at Rosyth and the long time that it has taken to get their submarines made fit for sea again. They will welcome the changes in the improvement of management and, further, they will also welcome the assurances that we have given on the Trident programme, which guarantees their jobs.

Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend will be proved to be far more wise in these matters than many Opposition Members who have spoken. Those who have the ultimate responsibility for the management of the Fleet are in favour of these proposals. As Secretary of State for Defence, responsible for the defence budget, I believe that they are in the best interests of the public.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Since I have a large number of constituents who work in one of these dockyards — the Secretary of State will know this, because he used to represent part of my constituency—will he comment on the numbers of people working in the dockyard who will be made compulsorily redundant? He skated over that somewhat, and I think that he should say how many redundancies he envisages in the next few years.
Will my right hon. Friend also say a little more about the job creation proposals? He mentioned Plymouth, but one of the real problems arises outside Plymouth, especially in Ivybridge where many people live who work in the dockyard. They need new jobs there, and there is a lot of land in Ivybridge which could be used by starter firms and starter businesses to create new jobs. Will he say a little more about that?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend asked me two important questions. The first is about the number of compulsory redundancies. It is my hope that we shall use every endeavour, to secure this purpose, to ensure that the job losses can be achieved by way of natural wastage and voluntary retirement—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] That will be the momentum that the Department now pursues. We cannot know how many people will accept voluntary retirement. In those circumstances we cannot quantify how many inevitably will be made compulsorily redundant. But all our endeavours will be directed to trying to minimise compulsory redundancy.
My hon. Friend then asked where any help that we can give will be located. That will he a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is personally chairing the Devonport development unit. It is not of concern to us

specifically if sites are within the city boundary or outside it so long as there are work opportunities in the area. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will have heard the question, and I have no doubt that he will bear it very much in mind.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, in view of the unreliability of private money, as evidenced recently by a number of events, he will make sure that certain companies are not given licences to operate in the royal dockyards when they get the opportunity? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House, for instance, that Gomba UK, run by Abdul Shamji, will not be given the opportunity to get its dirty fingers down there, as it did when it managed to find itself in an enterprise zone at Strood, near Rochester, a few months before anyone else seemed to know about the existence of the zone? That kind of preferential treatment is to be abhorred by everyone. When, into the bargain they do not pay back the money, what guarantee can the Secretary of State give that none of those people, of whom there are now an increasing r umber, will be able to move down there, make a killing, and leave the taxpayer to pick up the bill?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that we shall take all proper care to ensure that those who get contracts for this vital part of the defence establishment are of impeccable standards.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we are even to maintain let alone increase real levels of spending on defence, the Government will come under increasing pressure to show value for money in their spending? Does he also accept that this privatisation of the dockyards is not only a bold but an imaginative step long overdue, which is part of the drive to ensure that there is value for money in defence spending and which will be welcomed widely throughout the Royal Navy, especially at senior levels, and also in the country at large?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. All the precedents are on his side. Every time that this Government have taken a bold and courageous step to transfer public assets to the private sector, it has been widely welcomed by the customers and by those working for the companies concerned.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question that he has not yet answered? How many jobs will be lost as a result of this operation, especially at Devonport? Will he also say how much money can be put into the development unit to try to find other jobs?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also answer the question that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) asked? Why is he taking a perverse decision? He said that there had been argument over the past 15 years. Yes, but he is the only person who has not been involved in the argument. He has not put forward any arguments. Indeed, the Select Committee refused to accept what the Ministry of Defence said. By all means let the right hon. Gentleman take decisions. All that we ask is that he takes decisions on a rational basis instead of taking them in the dark and purely on the basis of ideology. The Opposition have always argued that changes are necessary, but all informed opinion believes that the changes can be carried out in the public sector.
There is one saving grace, however. By the time that the right hon. Gentleman has put through all these different legislative operations, he will not be Secretary of State, and the Labour party will ensure that the dockyards are taken back into public ownership.

Mr. Heseltine: If all these changes could be put through within the public sector, why did the Labour Government announce in 1978 that they had no intention of proceeding with a trading fund and give no alternative way forward? What conceivable explanation is there? There is only one explanation. It is that they could not carry their own people, including the unions, with them towards the enhanced efficiency that we are determined to achieve.
I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I have said several times. I have already given the figures. He knows full well that in Devonport there are at present some 13,000 people employed and that the potential job losses involved in the management improvements are of the order of 2,000. At Rosyth, it is 6,300, with job losses of the order of 400. I gave those figures in April and I gave them again earlier this afternoon.

Royal Dockyards

Dr. David Owen: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Secretary of State for Defence to ignore the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Defence and to announce his decision before making any substantive response to either of those two Committees.
The matter is specific and urgent because the House is adjourning for the summer recess on Friday. If the Secretary of State is to be believed, although there is some doubt about whether the implementation of his decision will be included in the Queen's Speech, it appears unlikely, were it to be in the Queen's Speech, that there will be any possibility of the House discussing the reports of the PAC and the Select Committee.
I submit that these Committees are not asked to make reports only for them to be brushed lightly aside. The PAC is one of the most respected Committees of the House. It is chaired, as is normal, by a distinguished Opposition Member, and it is made up of hon. Members of the House who certainly do not represent their local interests in the Committee. The Public Accounts Committee has drawn attention to the fact that it believes that the savings that will come as a result of these proposals will total, over a 10-year period, only £40 million, whereas it also estimates that the Government's proposals over a similar period will cost £60 million to implement. Therefore, over a 10-year period it is possible, if the Public Accounts Committee's fears are justified, that the Navy will have to find an extra £20 million to fulfil these obligations.
The report of the Public Accounts Committee also states that the Ministry of Defence provided
no valid basis to judge whether any materially increased efficiency whatsoever attached to the Government's preferred option".
The Committee went on to say that it had
severe misgivings about the thoroughness and the accuracy of the MOD's costings".
The Committee concluded:
The Ministry of Defence has not provided enough evidence to enable Parliament to assess the financial aspects of all the options.
I fail to understand, as, I think, do many fair-minded hon. Members on both sides of the House, how the Secretary of State, against that background of the Public Accounts Committee report, can come to the House and make this decision without producing a shred of evidence or making any attempt to answer the criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee. It is worse than that. The Select Committee on Defence also considered this question and came to a similar conclusion, although not in such a concentrated way.
I think that we owe it to the members of the Public Accounts Committee and to the Comptroller and Auditor General that this provision should not go without an urgent debate. As I understand it, this is the only opportunity for a debate. It is not just a constituency case. I do not believe that the matter can be argued as effectively in a debate on the Adjournment of the House because we wish the Secretary of State for Defence to answer. Although we like and respect the Leader of the House and pay tribute to his


great virtues, I think that he would be the last to admit that he should be cast in the role of defending the Secretary of State for Defence, and many of us hope that his wisdom will stop the inclusion of the proposal in the Government's legislative programme.
This is a matter of great concern. Many people's livelihoods are at stake. It raises the spectre of unemployment but, above all else, it raises the question whether under these provisions the Royal Navy will be as adequately and as well served as it has been in the past.
The House has paid tribute in the wake of the Falklands to the work that has been done by the royal dockyards. I suggest that the House owes it to those people in the royal dockyards in this circumstance to examine very carefully the Secretary of State's proposals before they are carried out. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will grant my request.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Secretary of State for Defence to ignore the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Defence and to announce his decision before making any substantive response to either of those two Committees".
I have listened with great care to what the right hon. Member has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should have priority over the business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter that he has raised meets all the criteria laid down in the Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

London Docklands (Report)

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a question which is similar to others which have been raised on this subject in the past? That is, the prior release outside the House of a document which should first come to the House.
Yesterday morning there was an announcement at a press conference held by the London Docklands development corporation of its annual report, which was then presented to the press and public. Four Members of the House represent constituencies covered by the area of the corporation. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, the chain of accountability is through the Secretary of State to the House. As far as I have been able to ascertain, none of the four Members of Parliament was notified in advance or had received—or, indeed, until now, has received—copies of that annual report. Indeed, the first notification which anybody in the House could have had is that there was laid on the Table of the House—and it is recorded in the Vote today—a copy of the annual report dated yesterday, although not obtainable in, and not delivered to, the Library of the House until this afternoon.
The issue raised is the manner in which the Secretary of State for the Environment or his Under-Secretary of State charged with responsibility for these matters is properly fulfilling his duty of prior and primary accountability to the House when a corporation, solely accountable to the House through the Secretary of State, acts to present its information and report outside the House before it comes to the House.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, whatever ruling you may be able immediately to give, that the matter be taken into account by the Leader of the House, who is in his place, and passed on to the relevant Ministers and Secretary of State in the Department, and that yet again you seek to protect the interests of Members of the House by confirming that documents should come first to the House before they go to the press and to other members of the public.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to the point of order. As another Member from the docklands area, may I say that I find this matter particularly disturbing because the London Docklands development corporation is under an obligation to make an annual report to the Minister, and that is the only way in which its actions and activities are made accountable and known to Members of Parliament.
There has been a flagrant breach, in that a press conference was held even before the document was deposited in the House of Commons. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that your own direct duties, rights and capacities in this matter are limited, but I hope that you will take this opportunity to make known your displeasure at this flagrant breach of convention and good manners.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps at this time, it would be appropriate for you, or somebody, to point out that, whenever we get these complaints about leaked. documents, which have happened in the course of the 15 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament, if television is allowed into this place, the leaking of documents and all other matters similar to the one that has been raised——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on a very good point. This is not a leaked document, as I understand it. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who raised the point, well know my strong views on these matters, and I will certainly let them be known in the right quarter.

BILLS PRESENTED

RACE RELATIONS (WELSH LANGUAGE)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley presented a Bill to amend the Race Relations Act 1976 to provide that a requirement relating to use of, or proficiency in, the Welsh language shall not constitute discrimination within the meaning of that Act; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

BRITISH NATIONALITY ETC. (TREATMENT OF CITIZENS OF PAKISTAN)

Mr. Tony Lloyd, supported by Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Robert Litherland, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Ken Eastham, and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, presented a Bill to amend the British Nationality Acts and the Immigration Act 1971 to confer upon citizens of Pakistan resident in the United Kingdom the same rights and privileges to which citizens of Commonwealth Countries are entitled: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 October and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

Local Government (Prevention of Political Corruption)

Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend sections 137 and 142 of the Local Government Act 1972.
I will deal first with the historical background and then with the present situation and the details of the Bill.
Up to 1972, local authorities were governed by the doctrine of ultra vires, and they were not permitted to do anything not specifically allowed for by statute. This meant that in some circumstances they were put in the embarrassing position, for instance, of not being able to repair a canal bank until they had come to the House for a general powers Act. In 1963, local authorities were given a very limited power to spend money on some projects not specifically allowed for by the House. In Committee at that time, Sir Cyril Black said that he hoped that local authorities would confine expenditure to necessary and modest projects, and would not make it an occasion for spending money merely because they had the power, unless there was some compelling reason for the expenditure.
Those were prophetic words because in 1972 Parliament decided to experiment and give local authorities the power to devote a 2p rate to anything of benefit not necessarily to all the residents of the local authority but merely to some. Parliament felt justified in making that experiment because there was at that time a consensus about what local authorities should be about, namely, professional full-time officers supervised by part-time elected councillors providing services of a direct and practical kind which all residents of that local authority would be deemed to enjoy or hope to enjoy at some future time. Since 1972, that consensus has broken down with the appearance of young full-time hard Left Labour politicians who, denied power in the national arena—often because they voice extremist policies—have turned town halls into an alternative state. They have tried to build up a coterie of tight-knit groups, which are often dependent on the town hall. Such groups often work in a self-supporting circle.
I should like to quote the example of a constituent. Councillor Ben Stallman is a Liberal and I do not support everything that he says but, for many years, he worked satisfactorily for Barnsley borough council, which was Labour controlled. As soon as he became a Liberal councillor, he was hounded and finally forced to retire on grounds of ill health. I believe that he was denied his statutory rights. It is interesting that Barnsley borough council employed Mr. David Blunkett, now the Labour leader of Sheffield city council, and that the late Fred Lunn, Labour leader of Barnsley district council, was employed by Sheffield.
The expenditure that such local authorities have engaged in is so well known that I do not need to go into detail. I have here a sheaf of paper detailing the grants that the Greater London council has made in the past year. The list includes £50,000 for the Troops Out movement, £2,000 for Song for Peace, £1 million for the biased free newspaper, The Londoner, and £8,000 for the Peace Year


statue. All of these cases are well known. Some of those groups would he more risible than anything else if there were not such a sinister purpose behind them.
Babies against the Bomb is well known, but it is interesting that the people who received a grant for the English Collective of Prostitutes have the same address as Women Against Rape. Mr. Tony Kerpel, the former leader of the Opposition on Camden borough council, has supplied me with information about organisations such as Lesbians and Policing Project. The women's committee of Camden council sponsored a visit of relatives of terrorists held in Armagh prison.
Such activities are not confined to London. The Labour group on Liverpool city council attempted to allocate £250,000 for a day of action—letting every member of the work force off work to demonstrate. The Lothian Clarion, a free newspaper which is paid for by the rates, drew the following response from a judge:
it was impossible to avoid the conclusion that the article was calculated to promote the election of Labour candidates.
Political corruption is not confined to financial matters. There has been violent intimidation of councillors in Lambeth and Camden, and the extensive co-opting of self-appointed community representatives on those councils.
The difficulty, when framing legislation, is that many Conservative-controlled councils use sections 137 and 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 to spend money on worthwhile projects. My Bill would therefore provide that all ratepayers and residents be given locus standi to take a council to court if they believe that it infringed the Bill.
It would be unlawful for a local authority to do anything which promotes support for or opposition to any political party or its policies, contributes to its funds, or does anything to help any other body to do those things. It is impossible to frame watertight provisions, but my Bill would give the courts a handle with which to intervene on behalf of local residents, with a view to depoliticising town hall spending.
The Bill would amend section 137, so that money could be spent on behalf of all or most inhabitants rather than all or some. It would provide that no person could be co-opted on to any local government committee and retain a vote. In Camden, the ruling Labour group has co-opted more people on to committees than there are opposition Conservative councillors. My Bill would make it lawful, upon application by a member of a local authority, for a police constable to be brought in to maintain order. Only the mayor has such authority under public order legislation, and he is often as politically intimidated as anyone else. It would be incumbent on a local authority to keep a register of every application by bodies that receive grants that would contain the names and accounts of those bodies—exactly as companies are expected to do under the Companies Acts.
My Bill would give redress to ratepayers. It would give them a right to ask the courts to intervene. It would depoliticise town hall spending and break the corrupt political links. I had hoped that the Government would have acted by now, having seen what is happening at grass roots level. We desperately need, in the Queen's Speech, notice of action. It is impossible to provide a watertight guarantee, but at least my Bill is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Tony Banks: The speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) ranged rather wider than the outline of the Bill suggests. The hon. Gentleman's speech is symptomatic of the hysteria that now afflicts most Conservative Members when considering any expenditure under sections 137 and 142 of the Local Government Act 1972. The same hysteria is reflected in the lunatic fringes of Fleet street. I shall go potty if I hear any more about Babies Against the Bomb — an organisation that received about £300 from the Greater London council three years ago. It seems to be the only reason that Conservative Members can find to abolish the GLC. It is a rather strange case on which to predicate major changes in local government.
The use of the phrase "political corruption", which the hon. Gentleman used in respect of local government, is grotesque. The Prime Minister and her colleagues seem to apply the term to any individal or organisation with which they disagree—and the number of such cases is growing these days. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would hesitate before using the word "corruption" in the context of local government, given the Government's involvement in such recent scandals as De Lorean, Johnson Matthey Bankers and Lloyds. If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in political corruption, I suggest that he look around him, as he is surrounded by past-masters of the art.
The hon. Gentleman is a well-known Right-wing maverick. He supported the Opposition in many divisions in regard to the abolition of the GLC. As a former employee and a member of the GLC, he knows how the system at county hall works.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to accuse hon. Members of corruption, as he clearly did in the hearing of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I do not think that the hon. Gentleman made any personal allegations.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that decisions on sections 137 and 142 are made in committees. Bearing in mind the readiness of Conservative-controlled boroughs such as Westminster and Bromley to take the GLC to court at the drop of a hat, I should have thought that, if the GLC had been involved in anything remotely corrupt, it would be exposed quickly. The hon. Gentleman also knows that the district auditor is located in county hall so, if the hon. Gentleman's former friends at county hall have complaints, they can nip along the corridor and raise them with the district auditor.
Politicians in local government, especially at county hall, are subject to constant surveillance. Indeed, they are subject almost to harassment by a battery of vicious malevolent hacks working for newspapers such as the Daily Mail, The Sun, the Daily Express and The Times. They would all very much like to expose anything corrupt in county hall, but they cannot find anything corrupt for the simple reason that there is nothing to be found.
Contrast the open way in which decisions are made in local government with the closed, secretive and manipulative world of Cabinet government. I know why the hon. Gentleman and so many of his colleagues are


obsessed—the reason is GLC expenditure under section 142 on the public awareness campaign. We used that campaign to alert Londoners to the great dangers of abolition of the GLC, and, of course, it has worked wonderfully well. It has exposed the Government's wicked vendetta against the GLC. Frankly, that is what annoys the Prime Minister and her erstwhile letter writer who seeks leave to introduce the Bill.
The total cost, under section 142, to Londoners of the public awareness campaign was £6 million. It was necessary to expend that money to inform Londoners, given the one-sided pro-Government version of abolition put out by the Tory propaganda machine of Fleet Street and compounded by the deceitful and misleading campaign of environment Ministers.
The Tory Government spend well over £100 million each year on advertising, much of which is dedicated to putting over a party political version of the truth. If we add to that the £60 million spent by British Telecom on advertising privatisation and the millions of pounds spent by the National Coal Board on advertising in its effort to break the miners' strike, the money spent by local government in its efforts to protect jobs and services for the people pales into insignificance. The Bill should be seen in that context.
Section 137 empowers all local authorities to raise the product of a 2p rate. In London that produces £38 million. That is a lot of money, but the rate has not changed since 1972. Currently the GLC provides £12·6 million to 628 voluntary and community groups under section 137, which represents 25 per cent. of the GLC's funding to such organisations. The balance is provided under other statutory authorities.
The broad categories of groups under section 137 funding are advice and counselling, monitoring and information, family services, young people, planning and environment, health, housing, settlement and social care, cultural community resources, education, ethnic minorities and training and employment. Yet all the hon. Gentleman can come up with is a few old proposals like Babies Against the Bomb and the English Collective of Prostitutes.
The largest proportion of the GLC's section 137 funding is devoted to employment generation initiatives. Of the projected £38 million that the GLC has raised for 1985–86, £26 million has been allocated to industry and employment programmes, of which £4·8 million will be devoted to the GLC training board project and £18·6 million to the Greater London Enterprise Board.
During the debate on abolition, Ministers said that boroughs would have the resources as well as the powers to take over the funding of projects currently funded by the GLC under section 137. It was pointed out to the Government that section 137 is itself used by the boroughs where there is no other statutory power to spend money. Therefore, abolition of the GLC will effectively result in a reduction from a total of 4p to a 2p limit for the boroughs. Obviously, where authorities spend up to their limit under section 137—and that includes most of the inner London boroughs — that would effectively decimate the money spent on the voluntary sector and on employment and training initiatives. The Government already have sweeping powers to control section 137 under

the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984. That is further evidence of their determination to centralise power and to eliminate local democracy.
The hon. Gentleman is anticipating the Widdicombe inquiry, which is currently examining discretionary spending by local authorities. The House would do well to await its findings. Such a Bill as outlined by the hon. Gentleman would be based on all the maliciousness that now characterises the Tory Government's attitude to local government, and it is one of the most uncorrupted and efficient systems of local government in the world. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would do well to take some pride in the system of local government that we have in this country, rather than carp and mount the malicious attacks that we have seen in recent years.
The Bill is untimely, unnecessary and unworthy. I ask the House to refuse the hon. Gentleman leave to introduce it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 123.

Division No. 286]
[4.55 pm


AYES


Ashby, David
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Aspinwall, Jack
Holt, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hordern, Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Howard, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Hunter, Andrew


Bellingham, Henry
Irving, Charles


Benyon, William
Jackson, Robert


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Buck, Sir Antony
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Budgen, Nick
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Latham, Michael


Cash, William
Lawler, Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Lawrence, Ivan


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Conway, Derek
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Simon
McCrindle, Robert


Corrie, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Couchman, James
Maclean, David John


Crouch, David
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McQuarrie, Albert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Maples, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Marland, Paul


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mates, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forth, Eric
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fox, Marcus
Mudd, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorst, John
Nicholson, J.


Greenway, Harry
Normanton, Tom


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Onslow, Cranley


Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ottaway, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hanley, Jeremy
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Pawsey, James


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Michael


Henderson, Barry
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hill, James
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Powley, John






Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Terlezki, Stefan


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Raffan, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Rost, Peter
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Shersby, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Silvester, Fred
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Spencer, Derek
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, Ivor



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Teddy Taylor and


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
 Mr. Piers Merchant.


Sumberg, David





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dubs, Alfred


Ashdown, Paddy
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Barnett, Guy
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Beith, A. J.
Flannery, Martin


Bell, Stuart
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Benn, Tony
Foster, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bidwell, Sydney
Freud, Clement


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Godman, Dr Norman


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Golding, John


Caborn, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Gourlay, Harry


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hardy, Peter


Cartwright, John
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Haynes, Frank


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cunningham, Dr John
Home Robertson, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Hoyle, Douglas


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dixon, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Dormand, Jack
Hughes, Simon (Southward)





Janner, Hon Greville
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Penhaligon, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pike, Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Lamond, James
Redmond, M.


Leadbitter, Ted
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ronald
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


McCartney, Hugh
Steel, Rt Hon David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Strang, Gavin


Maclennan, Robert
Straw, Jack


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McWilliam, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Marek, Dr John
Torney, Tom


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wainwright, R.


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wareing, Robert


Maynard, Miss Joan
Weetch, Ken


Meadowcroft, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Michie, William
Wigley, Dafydd


Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Nellist, David



O'Brien, William
Tellers for the Noes:


Park, George
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Parry, Robert
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.


Patchett, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. Richard Hickmet, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Peter Bruinvels, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mrs. Angela Rumbold and Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PREVENTION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION)

Mr. Edward Leigh accordingly presented a Bill to amend sections 137 and 142 of the Local Government Act 1972; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 October and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

Immigration

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 503).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I have to announce that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Brittan: The statement of changes in immigration rules that we are debating amends the current immigration rules in the light of the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The new rules make limited amendments to the current rules. They are not a comprehensive revision of the rules as a whole. They are essentially confined to putting the provisions under which husbands and wives are allowed permanent residence here on the basis of marriage on a common footing.
The current immigration rules reflect the commitment of this Government to apply a tight immigration control, a control to be exercised firmly and fairly. That is a policy for which I make no apology. It is based on a recognition of the strain that the admission of a substantial number of immigrants can place on existing resources and services in this country. We have therefore reduced fresh primary immigration to a minimum.
The figures speak for themselves. Last year, 51,000 people were accepted for settlement. That is the lowest figure since control of Commonwealth immigration began in 1962. It is nearly 19,000 below the figure in 1979. For the Indian subcontinent, the main area from which immigration now comes, the figures are a drop from 25,000 in 1979 to 15,000 last year.
At the same time, we have always maintained the policy of admitting the dependants of those granted permanent residence here. In the last 10 years, about a third of a million wives and children have been admitted. These people were dependants coming to join people who had come here earlier to take work. It was right to allow these dependants to come here. Successive Governments have continued this line.
The rules have always contained some differences in treatment between men and women where such distinctions were considered justifiable. None the less, the Government have recognised that in many areas it was right to work towards a more even-handed approach in the primary legislation. Thus, the British Nationality Act 1981, for the first time, subject to some transitional provisions to preserve the rights of women to registration, placed the sexes on an equal footing in respect of their acquisition of citizenship.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Can the Home Secretary confirm that about 17,800 spouses and children are waiting in the Indian subcontinent for clearance to come here to settle? Does he agree that, even if all of them were let in tomorrow morning, they would represent less than 3 per cent. of the British birth rate and still leave a net migration from Britain? In 18 out of the last 20 years more people have left the country than have come in. The Home Secretary gives credence to the idea that people are swamping the country when really the numbers are small. Wives and children want to be reunited. We are talking about family reunification.

Mr. Brittan: My figures are accurate. Allowing everyone to come in instantly would cause considerable pressure on city centres.
It is against that background that it is necessary to consider the recent cases which were brought before the European Court. Those cases challenged the distinction in the rules between the rights of settled men and settled women to be joined by their spouses. Under the current rules, a wife may as of right join a husband who is settled here, but is not a British citizen, while husbands may only join settled wives who are British citizens. That distinction reflected the Government's concern to protect the domestic labour market, an objective which in itself the court quite specifically endorsed.
Moreover, the court also upheld the Government on several other important points. It found that there was no breach of the convention on the ground of discrimination by birth or race. It held that in these cases there was no violation of the right to respect for family life as such, nor indeed had there been any inhuman or degrading treatment.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Under the convention Britain could, in January next year, give notice that it intends to withdraw from the convention. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with the wider issue of whether Britain should remain within the convention or come out. A number of early-day motions have been tabled in which many colleagues suggest that we should come out. This might be the appropriate moment to deal with the wider issues.

Mr. Brittan: I know that some of my hon. Friends take that view, but others believe that, for all its faults, the convention and the institutions associated with it play an important part in the protection of human rights in this country. More than one view is held on the subject.
I do not propose an extended discussion on the subject because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, the question of the extension of the right of petition does not fall to be decided now. We are parties to the convention and to the right of individual petition. We are therefore duty bound to make the changes required to comply with the convention as interpreted by the court.
In the context of cases before it, the court said that the advancement of equality of the sexes is today a major goal in the member states of the Council of Europe. According to the court, therefore, very weighty reasons would have to be advanced before a difference of treatment on the ground of sex could be regarded as compatible with the convention. The court did not hold that the goal of sexual equality must always be paramount, but it found that the Government's arguments for treating wives more favourably than husbands in this case did not provide sufficient justification for this distinction in treatment. Thus, while the court accepted the aim of the rules in restricting primary immigration, the effect of its judgment is to require a change removing the differences in the rules between the admission of husbands and wives of those permanently resident here.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The European Court cases arose directly from the right of British citizens to petition the European Commission individually. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now please answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for


Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who has a different view from mine? After 14 January 1986 will it be possible to petition individually? What is the Government's answer? I ask the Home Secretary not to dodge the question.

Mr. Brittan: I am merely informing the House that the Government will announce a decision, but that they are not read to do that today. They will announce the decision in good time.

Mr. Carlile: Why not today? It is important to the debate.

Mr. Brittan: It is not. We are parties to the convention and to the right of individual petition. We are duty bound to give effect to the Court's interpretation of the convention. The rules give effect to that. I am not able to announce whether there should be a change of policy depriving individuals of the right to individual petition. [AN HON. MEMBER: "We are about to go into recess."] I can assure the House that any such change will be announced when hon. Members are present. There is no difficulty.
We are giving effect to the convention as interpreted. It would not be compatible with the court decision to continue to frame the provisions relating to settlement through marriage in the immigration rules on the basis that men were regarded as heads of households and wives as dependants. The essential choice that had to be made, therefore, was whether to provide that from now on wives could join their husbands here only if their husbands were British citizens, and not merely settled here; or whether to allow husbands to join wives here, even if the wives were only settled here, and not British citizens. In other words, we had to choose between narrowing the basic rule to which the admission of wives is subject, or widening the rule applying to the admission of husbands.
Narrowing the basic rule applying to the admission of wives would have raised formidable difficulties. In the Government's view, they are overwhelming. Successive Governments have been committed to allowing those who have settled here to bring in their wives and dependent children. That right has not been confined to the wives of men who were British citizens. It has been enjoyed by men who are lawfully settled here, even if they are not British citizens. The pattern of immigration was for men to come here in advance of their families and establish themselves. To remove the expectation that they have had that they can apply to bring in their wives in due course would not in our view have been justified.
Individuals settle here from all parts of the world. Many make a significant contribution to this country in a wide variety of ways. They expect, when allowed to settle here, that they can have their families with them. If they were not allowed to bring in their wives, the consequences would be substantial. They would have the dilemma of having to seek British citizenship or of their wives not being allowed to take up residence with them.
We do not, therefore, believe that it would have been right to prevent wives from joining men who have been allowed to settle here. Consequently, we have chosen the alternative basic option that was open to us—permitting husbands to join wives who are settled here, even if they are not British citizens. As a result, therefore, of the court's judgment and of this change taken by itself, we expect that the numbers accepted for settlement each year

are likely to rise by about 2,000 a year. However, this increase will, at least to some extent, be offset by the changes, which I shall come to in a moment, concerning the admission of wives and families.
The immigration rules must of course be framed in accordance with the Immigration Act. Section 1(5) of the Act preserved certain entitlements which Commonwealth immigrants and their wives and dependent children had when the 1971 Act was passed.

Mr. Budgen: My right hon. and learned Friend is dealing with the constraints of the law. Is he absolutely satisfied that if individuals petition the European Court of Human Rights against the new rules, there will not be further succesful litigation and the need once again for the House to conform to foreign supervision?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend, as a fellow lawyer, will know perfectly well that it would be a foolish person who would give a guarantee of the kind for which he asks. However, I assure my hon. Friend that it is our view that these rules comply with the convention.
The immigration rules must be framed in accordance with the Immigration Act. Section 1(5) preserves certain entitlements that Commonwealth immigrants, their wives and dependent children had when the 1971 Act was passed. Reflecting the principles on which immigration and nationality legislation before 1971 were founded, the protection provided by section 1(5) distinguishes between the sexes in the benefits it accords. This is inevitably reflected in the immigration rules changes. The saving is confined to Commonwealth citizens settled on 1 January 1973 and their dependents. This is designed to be transitional in character and effect, but the framing of the 1971 Act provision is indeed sexually discriminatory. The Government intend, as part of their response to the European Court judgment, to introduce legislation in due course to put an end to the sexually discriminatory features of this provision in a way that preserves the Government's commitment to firm immigration control.
Allowing husbands to join resident women would meet the finding of violation in the European Court judgment, but to make that change alone would have left other important differences of treatment between husbands and wives seeking settlement on the basis of marriage. So far as the European convention is concerned, these other differences in the provisions would have been open to challenge, although they were not directly at issue in the cases before the European Court. It was therefore necessary to take a second fundamental decision — whether to abandon the tests which applied to the admission of husbands and which had hitherto not applied to wives, or to extend these tests to wives.
The 1980 rules strengthened the tests which our predecessors had reintroduced on the admission of husbands. The current requirements are three: the parties to a marriage must have met; each must have the intention of living permanently with his or her spouse; and, particularly important, the rules require that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to this country—the so-called primary purpose test.

Mr. Nellist: With regard to the changes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is introducing, and the three criteria, do the Government intend to alter the burden of proof for the primary purpose rule? At the moment, a person entering the country has to prove a negative—


that the reason for entering the country is not the reason for the marriage. Does the Home Secretary intend to put the burden of proof on the entry clearance officer to prove that the marriage is bogus, rather than on the couple?

Mr. Brittan: The Government have no such intention.

Ms. Clare Short: I am not sure that I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman properly, but if I did, he said something significant. Did he say that he intends to introduce legislation to amend the 1971 Act? Is he calling into question section 1(5) and the rights that have been secured ever since Reginald Maudling gave the assurance to men who came to settle here that they would have the right to bring their families? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that he would amend those provisions?

Mr. Brittan: I said that, as part of our response to the European Court judgment, it was our intention to introduce legislation in due course to put an end to the sexually discriminatory features of the provisions to which the hon. Lady referred. In answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), I point out that he should appreciate that there are a variety of ways in which that can be done, and I am not in a position to announce that at the moment.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Brittan: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend.
The provision is sexually discriminatory, as is illustrated by the fact that in making these changes to the rules, we have had to make a saving for those people covered by this subsection of the Act. If the Act did not require us to make such a saving, it would not be sexually discriminatory.

Mr. Nellist: What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saving?

Mr. Brittan: The saving is the provision—the hon. Gentleman will appreciate this if he studies the rules, as I am sure that he will wish to do — whereby the marriage tests that are to be applied in future to women as well as to men do not apply to those who seek and obtain admission as a result of entitlement produced by section 1(5).
Provided the requirements of the primary purpose test are met, a husband is admitted initially for 12 months. He is allowed to take up permanent residence if the marriage still subsists after that period and the parties still intend to live permanently with each other. Like the provisions they strengthened, these requirements apply only to the provisions relating to the admission of husbands. Under the current rules, they do not apply to wives. In terms of past immigration policy, the reason is evident. Successive Governments have been concerned to ensure that men cannot use marriage as a way of getting round the control on immigration for employment. We have not thought it necessary to adopt a similar approach to the admission of wives. They have hitherto been regarded as dependants.
To drop the tests currently applied to the admission of husbands would be to go back on our firm commitment to strict immigration control. We cannot have tight control over the admission of men for employment without having

rules which prevent marriage being used to circumvent that control. There is nothing in the European Court judgment which calls in question the requirements which husbands must satisfy. On the contrary, the legitimacy of their objective was specifically endorsed by the court. We cannot expect the European Court to endorse, in the light of the judgment, the continuation of giving wives preferential treatment by not making them subject to the same requirements.
Accordingly, it is entirely reseasonable that, if we are to comply with the principle of the judgment while maintaining strict immigration control, we should admit husbands of women who are settled here, but not British citizens, but should retain the marriage tests applying to the admission of husbands, and extend them to apply on the same basis to the admission of wives. This is what the new rules do. The tests are perfectly proper requirements for people seeking admission on the basis of marriage. The existing rules applying to the admission of husbands are legitimate. They will be equally legitimate when applied to the admission of wives. The rules are directed at establishing that the marriage through which a man is claiming the right to settle in this country is not one which has been entered into with the primary aim of securing admission. It would not be right to allow firm immigration control to be circumvented by the use of marriage. That is what the rules are directed towards. It is an objective which, on grounds of non-discrimination, has to be applied to the admission of wives.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman honestly believe that leaving the burden of proof under the primary purpose rule upon the applicant accords with article 8(1) of the European convention on human rights, which provides that everyone has the right to respect for his family life?

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had read the judgment of the court, he would be aware that no finding of the court challenges the purpose of the primary purpose test. The hon. and learned Gentleman has no basis for stressing such indignation.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose——

Ms. Clare Short: rose——

Mr. Brittan: I shall give way to the new face—the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary is right that the point about article 8 was not faced squarely in the court, as it was not an issue before the court. However, is it not also the case that the whole issue of sexual equality had not been before the court until this case, which demonstrated that the Government rules were in breach of the convention? By a similar argument, if a case is taken in the future on article 8, the Government's rules are wide open to be struck down again. Therefore, what the Government are doing will be in vain. Why do the Government always wait and then have to be dragged through the courts repeatedly on all these issues before they admit that what they are doing is contrary to the convention?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is entitled to his view and to his interpretation of the convention, but it should be a


salutary reminder to him, and perhaps an indication of the need for some restraint that in the cases that went before the court those who took the hon. Gentleman's view confidently stated that what the Government were doing under the provision about which complaint was made amounted to racial discrimination, or to discrimination on grounds of birth that there had been violation of respect for family life and that there had been inhuman or degrading treatment. Those who make confident predictions about what the court may do on a future occasion should take into account the fact that on all those grounds the court did not find that the Government were in breach. It found only that the Government were in breach in the case of sexual discrimination.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Brittan: No; I should like to make progress.
I shall now deal now with maintenance and accommodation. The current rules make the admission of wives subject to provision for maintenance and accommodation. This is a requirement which the husband must satisfy. It is in no sense a novel provision. He must show that he can maintain and accommodate his wife as his dependant. The admission of husbands is subject to no such requirement. It accordingly also became necessary to decide how to deal with the sex discrimination which arises from this distinction.
The principle that someone claiming admission to this country should be allowed to do so only if he or she will not become a burden on public funds is an entirely proper one. It would not be right to relax this requirement, but extending it to the admission of husbands puts the issue in a new context. Introducing formal equality would not be realistic. It would hardly be fair or sensible to require a wife whose husband is joining her to show that she can maintain and accommodate her husband.
Accordingly, the new rules introduce a new and more realistic approach by which the admission of either a husband or wife will be subject to the requirement that there shall be adequate provision for maintenance and accommodation for the couple jointly. It will mean that, for example, when a husband applies for entry clearance to join his wife, he will have to satisfy the entry clearance officer that he and his wife will be able to support themselves and will be able to house themselves. This will, of course, be a question of the means the couple already have at their disposal, including any from the wife's employment. Equally important, it will involve considering the arrangements the husband has made, or intends, when he joins his wife. That will be a question of assessing future intentions.
If the man has not already made employment arrangements, are his expectations realistic, given his experience and qualifications and his connections in this country? Likewise with accommodation: it will not be a question solely of what accommodation the wife already has. Obviously, she may well still be living with her parents. The question will be whether the couple have made adequate arrangements; and, if not, whether they have realistic intentions.
The new rules apply similar non-discriminatory provisions to male and female fiancées. This does not follow directly from the European Court judgment, but it would not be sensible in practice or appropriate in

principle to have requirements relating to the admission of husbands and wives which did not apply to male and female fiancées. As a further consequence, female fiancées will in future need to obtain entry clearance before coming to this country for marriage. Otherwise, they would be put in the impossible position of having to satisfy the requirements of the rules at the port of entry.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The Home Secretary knows that I am involved with these matters on a daily basis. Entry certificates will now be required for female fiancées. They have been required for a very long time for male fiancés. It can take two years or more to process these cases. All the arguments regarding the admission of male fiancés will now apply to the admission of female fiancées. Is it the Home Secretary's intention drastically to increase the staff who will have to cope with these cases in Delhi, Jullundur, Sylhet, Dacca, Gujerat and Bombay? He may recall that many years ago I was a member of the Select Committee that recommended equality of treatment for the admission of male fiancés and female fiancées, but to cope with their admission we knew that practical changes had to be made on the Indian subcontinent.

Mr. Brittan: The House knows and respects the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in these matters. The change to which he has just referred will impose an extra burden upon those who have to administer the controls. We shall do our best to ensure that it does not create an unacceptable burden, thereby causing further delay.
The new rules include other related changes, but we have confined the changes almost entirely to those necessary to give effect to the European Court judgment, except for the provisions necessary to take account of the entry of Spain and Portugal into the European Community on 1 January next year.
The judgment of the European Court has made necessary some important and difficult choices both for the immigration control as such and for the country generally. In relation to immigration, choices have to be made not only about individual cases but about policies. The Labour party, when in government, seemed to recognise that. I am not sure that it does now. If I have got it right, it would let in as many people as it could, without the benefit of tests protecting the labour market. That may be a policy to encourage immigration, but it is not one which the people of this country will accept.
We, on the other hand, have faced up to the need to take difficult decisions. We came to office committed to take a firm grip of immigration. We have done so. Primary immigration has fallen. It is against that background that our balanced response to the European Court judgment is justified both in policy and effect. The new rules as a whole will fully uphold the firm policy to which we are committed. Accordingly, I commend them to the House.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, leave out `approves' and insert 'disapproves.'.
It is eight weeks since the European court delivered a judgment declaring that on two counts the United Kingdom was in breach of the European convention on human rights. The court found that the convention had been violated on the ground of sexual discrimination, in


that it was easier for a man settled in the United Kingdom than for a woman so settled to obtain permission for a non-national spouse to enter or remain in this country. Secondly, it found that article 13 of the convention had been violated because there was no effective remedy in English law for the first violation.
When Parliament reconvened the following week after the spring bank holiday recess, the Opposition pressed for a Government statement on the European Court judgment, but none was forthcoming. However, the Home Secretary promised an announcement. That was made on 10 July, six weeks after the judgment. The Government had presumably taken their time in formulating their response in order to ensure that that response met the requirements of the judgment in every particular. However, the announcement was made not in an open statement on the Floor of the House but furtively, in a written answer to a planted question. We made a complaint about that, on the grounds that the House should have had the right to question the Home Secretary. That complaint was not simply about a procedural lapse. It was because we had relevant questions to put to the Home Secretary which required detailed answers before the House could sensibly debate the changes in the rules.
I, with others, have attempted to obtain some of those answers by means of written questions, but even after the Home Secretary's speech today—or especially after his speech today—many important questions have still not been answered. The situation is now more obscure, and in many ways more absurd, than it ever has been.
First, there is the crucial matter of the right of individual petition to the European Commission, a matter that has already been raised on both sides of the House. It was recourse to that right which led to the judgment whose consequences we are debating today. All the countries which subscribe to the convention allow such a right of petition but, as has been pointed out, its continuance depends upon maintenance of ratification of article 25 of the convention.
For the United Kingdom ratification is next due in January next year, and the Home Secretary has dodged the questions put by hon. Members about that matter. Therefore, I ask either the Home Secretary now, or the Minister of State when he winds up, to say clearly that the United Kingdom will once again ratify—as both Labour and Conservative Governments have on six occasions in the past 19 years — so that the right of individual petition is maintained.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that is a decision which should be the result of a debate and, if necessary, a vote in this House?

Mr. Kaufman: I am perfectly happy for the House to debate that matter and I think it perfectly proper for the House to vote on it, but in the end it is the responsibility of the Government to decide whether they wish to re-ratify. If the Government decide to re-ratify, it is the business of the Government to ensure that there is a majority in the House for re-ratification.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman, with his welcome enthusiasm for re-ratification, explain to us why in 1976 a Labour Government re-ratified for only five

years, on the basis that the experimental period should still run? Will he now tell us that a Labour Government would ratify the European convention without limitation of time and not just on an experimental basis?

Mr. Kaufman: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman can do better than that, because the five-year re-ratification is the longest that there has been. The other periods were three years and—the last time that this Government did it—two years. My own view is that we should ratify on a permanent basis. If the hon. and learned — he can deny it if he likes — Gentleman is now satisfied, I am happy for him.
I was saying that we heard nothing from the Home Secretary this afternoon about what the Government are doing to rectify the United Kingdom's violation of article 13 of the convention by failing to provide an effective remedy in English law against violations of the convention. I am amazed that the Home Secretary should not even have referred to that matter, as it was labelled a violation in the judgment of the court that presumably we all have with us this afternoon. Will the Government provide the remedy without which the European Court says that the British Government are violating the convention? If not, they will remain in direct violation of a judgment of the court.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Kaufman: Not at the moment. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), so the alliance has had a fair proportion of the interventions.
The European Court judgments were made in response to the three women who went to the court and in whose favour the court found, but we have heard nothing from the Government about all the other women who, between 1979 and 1985, have been victims of the violations of the convention that were condemned by the European Court. I say 1979 because, although the rules complained of were made in 1980, the Government wrongfully began operating them in November 1979. I say 1985 because, although the 1980 rules were superseded in 1983, the Government have acknowledged, by the substantial amendments to them contained in the document that we are debating today, that the 1983 rules are equally sexually discriminatory. Those 1983 rules are still operative today, in 1985.
Most significantly of all, the Government have at last admitted that the primary purpose rule is sexually discriminatory. That confession is implicit in the Government's purported extension of the primary purpose rule from 26 August to wives and female fiancées as well as to husbands and male fiancés. By doing that, they have admitted that every refusal to a male partner of a woman in the United Kingdom between 1979 and 1985 on primary purpose grounds has been a violation of the convention, just as they implicitly admit, by their changes in the rules to include at any rate token eligibility to the male partners of women who are settled in the United Kingdom but not British citizens, that all refusals to such women here have been violations of the convention. Yet we have not had a word from the Home Secretary to say what the Government intend to do to remedy those injustices for the women concerned, whose precise number is not known but who may number between 3,000 and 4,000.
The changes in the rules provide a theoretical improvement for women who are settled here but not British citizens, if their male partners have been subject to refusal, but such an improvement, however illusory, lies only in the future. Again, the Government provide no remedy whatever to those who have been refused on grounds of primary purpose, since the primary purpose rule remains and the survival of that rule will probably negate in most cases the newly conferred theoretical right of settled women who are not British citizens.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Kaufman: Therefore, I say very clearly to the Government——

Mr. Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to make his own speech. Meanwhile, I wish to proceed.
I say very clearly to the Government that unless, before the end of the debate, they promise a review of all refusals of husbands and male fiancés between November 1979 and August 1985, my advice to the women concerned will be to follow the example of Mrs. Abdulaziz, Mrs. Cabales and Mrs. Balkandali, and take their cases to the European Court. They will have a good chance of winning, and the costs awarded against the United Kingdom Government by the court will, equally undoubtedly, amount to several million pounds. So it is up to the Government: either they risk suffering further massive expense and humiliation or they go against their instincts and give long-delayed justice to the women concerned.
If undoubted injustice has been permitted against women and their male partners by the Government for the past six years, can we at any rate look forward to the ending of such injustice as a result of the tabling of the rules? I have to say that the answer to that question is no.
When, on 28 May, the European Court ruled that it was sexual discrimination for a man to be able more easily than woman to bring his marriage partner to settle in the United Kingdom, the obvious remedy was to make it as easy for a woman to do so as a man. What is more, it would not have been an onerous decision. The numbers involved — though each involving individual hardship and heartbreak — amount only to a handful of thousands spread over a six-year period. But the Government, instead of taking the logical and decent course, decided to take the spiteful and vindictive course by resolving to make it as difficult for a man to bring his marriage partner into the United Kingdom in the future as it has been for a woman in the past.
What is more, the Home Secretary has taken the opportunity to make conditions for many applicants more onerous than they have ever been, in ways that could not have been prophesied even by those cynical, or realistic, enough to expect the very worst from this Government.
In the existing immigration laws, certain conditions have been laid down for would-be entrants and their sponsors with regard to reliance on maintenance on public funds. The current rules, for example, lay down that a male fiancé must not have recourse to public funds prior to his marriage; that a female fiancée must be maintained without recourse to public funds both before and after marriage; and that wives and other dependants must be

maintained without recourse to public funds. The new rules extend that requirement to husbands and to male fiancés after marriage.
It certainly does not seem to be an unfair condition that people emigrating to the United Kingdom, or those whom they join here, shall not be so indigent or feckless that they become unacceptable burdens on taxpayers already resident here. However, what sounds fair in principle—and what the Home Secretary described this afternoon as realistic—becomes unacceptable in practice, because the new rules define for the first time exactly what "public funds" means. The Government's definition is very wide indeed. It includes family income supplement — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] — which a Conservative Government introduced as a standard benefit and which is paid to 199,000 recipients.

Mr. Nellist: My right hon. Friend may not have heard the interjections from the Tory Benches when he mentioned family income supplement. Tory Members were asking, "Why not?" Will my right hon. Friend take up the point that, on the strict application of the immigration rules, only rich people could come into this country? Anyone who had one of the jobs held by the 9 million people in this country who have to rely on some sort of assistance because their wages are below £100 a week would be caught. In other words, it comes down again to the class question of rich and poor.

Mr. Kaufman: That is true. It also comes down to a race question. One reason why I shall vote for the televising of the House is so that people can see the ugly racialism that bubbles up on the Tory Benches when we debate matters of this kind.
Under the definition in the document, recourse to public funds includes supplementary benefit, which, far from being paid to a minority of scroungers and ne'er-do-wells, is received by no fewer than 4·6 million recipients. People becoming unemployed through no fault of their own will be prevented under the rules from bringing their wives or husbands into this country if their circumstances attract supplementary benefit.
The most grotesque example of public funds whose receipt will exclude male or female spouses from entering this country is housing benefit. When the House debated housing benefit four weeks ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security boasted:
no system compares in any way with the scope, range and expertise of our housing benefit system."—[Official Report, 27 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 1142.]
Yet that very scope and range are to be employed as an obstacle to prevent spouses from entering this country. Housing benefit is available to owner-occupiers diligently paying off their mortgages as well as to tenants diligently paying their rents. Recipients of housing benefit total 7·5 million. They are 38 per cent. of all the households in this country. Benefit can be as little as 50p a week, yet under the new rules a recipient of housing benefit can be disqualified from being joined in this country by his or her marriage partner.
The rules even disqualify someone rehoused under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. Someone evicted through no fault of his own and availing himself of his statutory right to be rehoused will be prevented from living in that house with his or her marriage partner. Last year alone, there were 83,000 such households.
It takes a Government infected with an extraordinary perversion of meanness to lay down such disqualifications. It is a dangerous distortion of the function of government that the Department of Health and Social Security is explicitly to be made an agency for immigration control.
What are the rights that receipt of these benefits nullifies? It is when we examine them that we find that the Government have plunged themselves into a morass of inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities which demonstrate that the Home Secretary is not only intellectually stunted and administratively incompetent, but morally disreputable as well.
What is more, the changes are all pointless. As I shall demonstrate, the new rules will leave the Home Secretary as much in violation of the European convention as did the old ones. The moment that the first adverse decisions are made under the new rules, there will undoubtedly be a fresh flow of applications which could end up in the European Court and be decided against the British Government.
We have to consider a mistake in the drafting of the new rules which makes nonsense of the provisions in them relating to children. The new paragraph 50A(b) says that children under 18 seeking admission shall be admitted
if they meet the requirements of sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 50 but for the fact that they are joining or accompanying one parent given limited leave with a view to settlement.
But paragraph 50 of the existing rules posits sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) as alternatives and it is clear that in the new document the word between (e) and (f) should be "or", not "and". So the new rules, apparently the subject of so much consideration by the Home Secretary, are bedevilled by a serious drafting error which will have to be amended if the law of this land is to make sense.
We must also consider another serious mistake in the new rules affecting children. Under the existing rules, a child under 18 is normally admitted for settlement, and that is that. Under the new rules, a child under 18 is to be admitted for only an initial period of 12 months.
If the child is aged 17 and passes his or her 18th birthday during that initial period, if he or she gets married or if, due to delays in decisions, the child is already 18 during the initial period, there is no right in the rules for the child to remain.
Moreover, whatever the age of the child, if the parent has had to have recourse to public funds during the initial year, the Home Office will have the power to remove the child. One trusts that that disturbing error is due to sloppy drafting rather than to malevolent intention, but clearly those two mistakes mean that the new rules are seriously defective. On that ground alone, they ought to be withdrawn.
However, there are even more substantial reasons why, if the rules are not withdrawn, the House should reject them. The reasons are such that they ought to commend themselves to all hon. Members, whatever their views on immigration control.
The Government claimed in a written answer to the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) on 10 July that the rule changes bring the provisions for the admission of husbands and wives into line with each other and thus secure compliance with the judgment of the European court in relation to sexual discrimination. But

they do no such thing. The amendments in the new document purport to achieve that equality by extending the primary purpose rule to wives and female fiancées as well as to husbands and male fiancés and by laying down the same requirements for all in regard to recourse to public funds. Yet the recourse to public fund requirement is itself an act of sexual discrimination.
The average weekly earnings of women are only 66 per cent. of those of men. Earnings of women in manual occupations are only 61 per cent. of those of men. The possibility of women having to have recourse to public funds is accordingly 50 per cent. or more greater than that of men, and such recourse is sufficient reason in the new rules for the rejection of an application.
That hurdle is in addition to an enormous exemption from all the new and onerous requirements — an exemption which makes nonsense of everything else that the Government are doing. Section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971, which is the governing Act of the rules, says:
The rules shall be so framed that Commonwealth citizens settled in the United Kingdom at the coming into force of this Act and their wives and children are not, by virtue of anything in the rules, any less free to come into and go from the United Kingdom than if this Act had not been passed.
That is an overriding privision which cannot be overruled or amended except by primary legislation. It applies only to men and not to women.
The Home Secretary said that it is the Government's intention to introduce such primary legislation. We require an answer to the question, does that statement by the Home Secretary mean that such legislation will remove the section 1(5) guarantee? If it means that, it will be an intolerable breach of repeated commitments by the Government. I name the first one because that section 1(5) was not in the Bill as originally introduced in the House. It was an amendment from the other place. On 19 October 1971, when this House considered the Lords amendments, the then Home Secretary, Mr. Maudling, said of section 1(5), which the present Home Secretary says he is going to amend:
We provide that in the rules there should be a continuing right for immigrants settled here to bring their wives and children with them. It has been argued that this statutory right should be preserved, and the purpose of the second Amendment is to presever the current statutory right to bring in wives and children".—[Official Report, 19 October 1971: Vol. 823, c. 552.]
Are the Government going to stand by that guarantee? If they are, they cannot amend that section in a way that will renew the guarantee. If they amend the section in that way, they will be breaking not only one promise but a series of solemn promises to the House of Commons.
While that section and subsection are on the statute book, however many or however few men are covered by it, their exemption ensures that there cannot be equal treatment for men and women. It therefore ensures that the European Court judgment, and consequently the European convention, are violated.
The Government have decided to make that exemption an excuse for negating to an overwhelming extent any pretence that they mean to treat men and women equally. The phrase
Commonwealth citizens settled in the United Kingdom"—
the phrase in this section—includes all British citizens born in this country on or before January 1973 and living here on that date, which is the date of the coming into force of the Immigration Act 1971. This means that, of the 27


million males in this country today, 21 million are exempted from the primary purpose rule and the other new obstacles as they affect wives. The exemption covers approximately three quarters of all the males in this country, but about 90 percent. of men over 18. Those men are roughly of marriageable age and most of them are white. About half the black men here will not benefit from this exemption.
All the women in Britain are affected by the primary purpose rule and the other conditions with regard to husbands, but most of the males are not affected by these restrictions as they affect wives; and that is what this Government mean by sexual equality.
This wilful distortion of the legislation goes completely against what was intended by those responsible for its enactment. The Act is about immigration, and this provision was specifically intended to apply only to immigrants. That was clearly explained by Mr. Maudling in the quotation that I offered to the House. The relevant sentence states:
We provide that in the rules there should be a continuing right for immigrants settled here to bring their wives and children with them."—[Official Report, 19 October 1971; Vol. 823, c. 552.]
With these rule changes, the Government are deliberately perverting the intentions of the parent Act. No doubt they are congratulating themselves on doing so for, apart from the little matter of continuing to violate the European convention, they have neatly turned section 1(5) protection into an exclusion favouring almost all white males who wish to bring foreign or Commonwealth wives into this country. Unfortunately, by doing so, the Government have spawned a mass of ridiculous and contemptible anomalies. They have created, whether they realise it or not, a series of divisions among those same white males whom they are seeking to favour, while at the same time penalising most black males. They continue to penalise all women, whether black or white.
The section 1(5) exemption applies only to wives and not to fiancées. This means that, if one of the 21 million apparently favoured males wishes to bring in his wife, he can do so unconditionally, but if he wishes to bring in his fiancée, she will be subject to the primary purpose and public funds obstacles. All these women, whether they are white or black, whether their prospective husbands are white or black, whether their husbands were born in this country, have long ancestries in it or were immigrants, will be subject to the degrading and humiliating question that is inherent in the primary purpose rule.
The section 1(5) protection applies only to those in Britain on 1 January 1973. That seems all right for the time being, since the oldest among the 4½ million males born here since 1 January 1973 are aged between 12 and 13. But time will pass, and in five or six years these teenagers will begin to reach marriageable age. When they do so, they will not enjoy section 1(5) protection and will be subject to the full rigour of the primary purpose and public funds conditions. Elder brothers will be free to marry whom they like; younger brothers will not. None of them, older or younger, will have the freedom that used to be available to bring fiancées to this country.
There will be extraordinary and unacceptable discrimination against British nationals and European Community nationals resident here. Under the freedom of movement provisions of the treaty of Rome, European Community nationals are completely at liberty to work

here without any nonsense of primary purpose rules arid to bring in not only their wives but their children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and great grandparents. Although they do not, in strict terms, have equal freedom to bring in their fiancées, they actually have such freedom, because paragraph 15 of the new rules not only entrenches but extends the right of all European Community nationals—men and women—to enter this country not only to take employment but to seek employment.
European Community fiancées will he able to enter this country freely under this provision and will, therefore, have rights denied to the fiancées of millions of British citizens. I would add "of law-abiding British citizens" for among the European Community nationals in this country who will not be affected by these restrictions when British citizens will be are the Italian Fascist terrorists whose presence in London has been exposed by the press and ITN.
In these absurd and derisory rules, the Government have managed to make one law for men and another for women, one law for white men and another for black men, one law for white men and their wives and another for white men and their fiancées, one law for males born before 1973 and another for males born since 1973, and one law for British men and another for European Community men living in Britain.
All this has been done in violation of the most solemn promises, for the decision to penalise men who were born here or came here after 1973 is a breach of specific pledges made by Conservative Ministers. On 11 November 1982, in a debate on immigration rules, Lord Whitelaw as Home Secretary was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley):
If it is not right to allow women who are settled here to bring in husbands, why is it right to allow men who are settled here to bring in wives?
Lord Whitelaw replied:
The right for men was established in the 1971 Act. That is the position and I believe that it should remain.
If Lord Whitelaw was still Home Secretary, I believe that he, as an honourable man, would have kept that commitment. It has now been broken.
In the same debate, the then Minister of State, Home Office, who is now the Minister for Overseas Development — the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—stated:
the Immigration Act 1971 … entitled men settled in Britain to bring in their wives and under-age children … we have always accepted that this guarantee should apply to men settled here since then. That, in my opinion, is the humane decision."—[Official Report, 11 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 695, 753.]
That humane decision is now being violated.
The present Minister of State, addressing the Conservative party conference in 1983, made a courageous speech opposing, the racialist resolution proposed by the Billericay constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Surprise, surprise."] He said:
I remind the conference that the Immigration Act 1971 gave to men who have settled here the right to have their families join them. The motion ignores the fact that about two thirds of those accepted for settlement last year were those families, the wives and children of men already settled here, often men settled here since before 1971, and the motion tells us to take away that statutory right. Is that what Councillor Eyre wants when he talks about a respite?


Those were fine words, but in advocating these rules, the Minister is breaking them. What is he doing by breaking his word? I shall again quote from the Conservative party conference. He said:
But the motion does even more than that. What it seeks to do, when one examines it, is to deny a British citizen the right to choose a wife from where he wants and live with her here.
The Minister condemned that when others proposed it, yet he and the Home Secretary are doing exactly that tonight.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Either the right hon. Gentleman is deceiving the House, which I cannot believe, or he has completely misunderstood the rules. Nothing whatsoever in the rules takes away from a British citizen the right to bring in a wife. The most that the right hon. Gentleman can say is that if a British citizen wishes to bring in a wife, the wife will have to satisfy the immigration officer that the primary purpose of the marriage is not merely immigration. That is the only way in which the right hon. Gentleman can begin to argue that the rights of a British citizen are being removed. He has obviously misunderstood the purpose of the exercise.

Mr. Kaufman: I have never misunderstood the Minister's intention in these matters. If the wife must only satisfy the primary purpose rule, as he says, why is it that 90 per cent. of all refusals are based on the primary purpose rule, and more than 40 per cent. of all applications, whether accepted or rejected, are refused on the basis of the primary purpose rule? It is a device to negate a right, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows it.
Three months ago the Home Secretary spoke to the conference of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service in Manchester. He said:
the Government is firmly committed to allowing the dependants of those already settled here to join them. In 1984, over 16,000 wives and over 11,000 children were accepted for settlement. That is well over half of all those who were allowed to settle here last year. Over the past decade the United Kingdom has accepted about a third of a million wives and children for settlement. I believe that these figures demonstrate that this Government continues to put first the commitment which this country has made to those who have emigrated here.
Tonight that proud boast lies in tatters because the stringent conditions——

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have read the rules.

Mr. Kaufman: How can the Home Secretary say that I have not read the rules when he has two major drafting errors in them, which makes nonsense of them? He did not mention them, and I hope that his civil servants will make it clear how they can be put right.
That proud boast lies in tatters, because the stringent conditions imposed on certain wives and all fiancees under these new rules will negate any theoretical right of entry. Experience of the operation of the primary purpose rule aginst women since 1979 makes that clear. As I said earlier, 90 per cent. of refusals for husbands and male fiancés from the Indian subcontinent are due to the primary purpose rule. That is likely to be the future pattern for wives and female fiancees. Indeed, the Government intend that to be the pattern.

Ms. Clare Short: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is some hypocrisy coming from the Government

Benches in that today the Home Secretary has announced his intention to amend the 1971 legislation and to interfere with section 1(5), yet he sits and shakes his head in disagreement when my right hon. Friend says that that will breach an undertaking given by every Home Secretary since Reginald Maudling? The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Kaufman: Not only can the Home Secretary not have it both ways, but his statistics and what he said this afternoon undermine what he says. An answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) made it clear that the increase in the number of male immigrants as a result of the change in the rules will be more than counterbalanced by the reduction in the number of female immigrants. What is it all for? It is merely to keep out a handful of thousands of husbands and male fiancés, mainly from the Indian subcontinent. Those victims are fewer in number than those who vote in a by-election to fill a local authority vacancy, or the number of delegates at a Tory party conference. They number about one five-hundredth of 1 per cent. of the population. Those are the true dimensions of the alleged problem that has ensnarled the Home Secretary in this discreditable tangle.
Viewed objectively, immigration should be neither a problem nor an issue in Britain. Substantial primary immigration ended at least a decade and a half ago, and there is no prospect of it starting again. In most years there is a net emigration from the United Kingdom. In 1983–84, 45 per cent. of so-called immigrants were Britons returning to the United Kingdom. In that year only 15·5 per cent. of immigrants came from the West Indies, Africa and the Indian subcontinent—the areas from which, according to the Government, there is the greatest pressure to emigrate to the United Kingdom.
The Labour party certainly believes in firm immigration controls — [Interruption.] I say to Conservative racialists, who wish it were different, that we believe in firm immigration controls, but, unlike the Government, we insist that immigration controls should be non-sexist and non-racist.

Mr. David Winnick: rose——

Mr. Kaufman: I shall not give way, because I am about to sit down.
Today we are discussing the right of women and men to marry whom they wish, and to live where they wish with their chosen spouse. Surely that sentiment must appeal to the Prime Minister who in 1981 said:
not only is the family the most important means through which we show our care for others. It's the place where each generation learns its responsibilities towards the rest of society.
The rules are disreputable and shoddy, and they will lead to administrative chaos and, what is worse, much human misery. They are conceived in prejudice, and will be administered with invidiousness. Two things remain for the Home Secretary to do—one is to withdraw these rules, and the other is to resign. He should do both today.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: Immigration is a subject that should not lead to an us-and-them debate. To talk about tightening controls as the prerogative of the majority white population and of liberalising controls as the prerogative of the ethnic minorities, or as an attempt to appease them, is to make false and sweeping


generalisations and perpetuate the status of immigrants, a status that applies no longer to the majority of the coloured population. Ethnic minorities have as much at stake in Britain's future and its social fabric as the white population. I contend that they have a greater interest because they are at a greater social disadvantage than their white counterparts. The ethnic minorities suffer from greater unemployment and a greater degree of bad housing.
Immigration controls are of benefit to the entire community but their operation must not lead to the disadvantage of any section of the community. If immigration controls are to be respected, they must apply equally. The old rules that the European Court rejected were clearly discriminatory and not to the Government's credit. It is a shame that individuals had to go to the European Court to have them corrected.
There is nothing objectionable in applying strict immigration controls to prevent abuse. There is nothing objectionable in the way in which the Government have tackled the judgment of the European Court. There is nothing objectionable in controlling the numbers coming into the country. It is the methods that are used to achieve that object that are objectionable if they are unfair and discriminatory. In the overall context of immigration control, a primary purpose rule is an effective method of controlling entry and deciding reasons for entry. However, is it right that that rule should assume that the applicant is fraudulent unless it is proven otherwise? The figures show that there has been a large increase in the number of applicants who have been refused on account of the primary purpose rule. There has been a commensurate and significant decrease in other reasons for refusal when applications for entry have been made for marriage reasons. If the rules are keeping out those who would otherwise fail in their applications, why submit applicants to the indignity and anxiety that goes with having to try to prove that their marriage is genuine?
In how many of the extra refusals would the entry clearance officers fail to prove a bogus application while at the same time the applicant would be unable to prove that he was making a genuine application to come here for marriage? It is more likely that the inability to prove the genuineness of the application will be because the applicant has the handicap of a lack of resources, lack of intelligence or lack of preparation. The applicant should not be penalised for being in that position and the onus must be put on the authorities.
How many of those who are settled in this country and how many hon. Members could pass the primary purpose rule? The rule might reduce the number of divorces if it were to be applied here. Elizabeth Taylor would have failed miserably on every occasion.
There is a need to review the primary purpose rule and to consider whether the onus of proof should not be returned to the authorities. I hope that the Government will undertake such a review. There is no doubt that the current application of the rule causes applicants to suffer indignity and anxiety.
Another detail of the new rules that concerns me—I am sure that it will cause great concern to many of my constituents — is that which is directed to adequate maintenance and accommodation. Many applicants who apply to bring in husbands, fiancés or wives may be in the fortunate position of having a job. However, before their application is processed they may, unfortunately, lose

their employment. They may lose it during the 12 months between their partner entering the United Kingdom and the end of the probationary period. Circumstances completely outside their control might dictate that their application fails. Equally, once their partner is here he or she may have to return to the country from whence they came because of the unfortunate economic circumstance in which they found themselves. The criterion that bears on adequate maintenance and accommodation will effectively rule out those of my constituents who are unemployed or low paid having the chance to marry the person of their choice.
An applicant who enters the United Kingdom will have to prove that he or she has a job that will provide sufficient pay not to make it necessary to claim housing benefit or family income supplement, or that he or she has great qualifications and that it is likely that he or she will be able to take a job. That is the position of an applicant whose partner is in this country and unemployed. Are we to tell a young man that he cannot be allowed into the country because he will have to make a claim on public funds, when he has good qualifications, the probability of finding a job—for example, a trainee chartered accountant—and good prospects? Is that really what we are to tell someone in that position when it is likely that his income initially will be low and he will have to claim housing benefit, for example?

Mr. John Carlisle: I have been listening intently to my hon. Friend. If the rules did not exist, does he agree that those intending to enter the country would be tempted to do so for that very reason? Does he accept that they might be tempted to come here to enjoy the benefits which other taxpayers, who have been settled for many years, have provided?

Mr. Lawler: The greatest need and desire of those entering the country would be to get a job so that they would not have to rely on public funds. I have some knowledge of the Asian community and I know that its members are extremely enterprising and hard-working. Those who have to live on the public purse take no pride in that fact. Asians like to live off their own means and provide for themselves. The rules might prevent them being able to do that. In the initial stages, when they are gaining qualifications, becoming better qualified and working towards the stage when they can be self-sustaining, they might have reasons to have recourse to public funds. It is in the initial stage that we shall inhibit them from joining their partners in this country.

Ms. Clare Short: Is the hon. Gentleman perplexed because the Government have not included the application for mortgage interest relief in the provisions that turn on recourse to public funds? The provision of that relief leads to greater expenditure by the Exchequer than that on housing benefit. Does this not show the class bias that underlies the rules?

Mr. Lawler: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I do not accept that mortgage interest relief should be included in the list of the various claims on public funds. I should prefer to narrow the definition rather than widen it.
A worrying feature of the housing provisions is that the applicants are deemed to live in their own property. This requires clarification. I have come across examples where an uncle or a wealthy friend has offered to provide


accommodation. It is not uncommon in the Asian community for someone to own more than one house. If a couple wish to get married and the fiancé, husband or wife is coming here from the Indian subcontinent, I see no reason why that practice should not be allowed to continue. I hope that paragraph 15 will be clarified so that we know whether the practice can continue. My concern extends beyond housing to the provision of money and income by relatives or friends to sustain the couple once they are in the United Kingdom. This practice has been quite common among my constituents and I hope that it will not be brought to an end, especially as a substantial proportion of the Asian population in many of our cities suffer a disproportionate rate of unemployment.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The hon. Gentleman is making a courageous speech. Will he follow it by voting against the Government this evening?

Mr. Lawler: If the hon. Gentleman will wait until I conclude my speech, he can draw his own conclusions.
This detail means that many of my constituents will be worried about engaging in a contract of marriage and inviting over people they wish to marry. That is because they will enter a 12-month period, at the beginning of which they may be in employment. However, at the end, they may not be and they will be worried about their fate. The person in this country may be a British citizen born and educated here, who has worked here for many years and has paid his or her taxes. That person, therefore, has as much entitlement to claim benefits from the welfare state as anyone else.
We must not put that person in a position where he cannot claim benefits because of the fear that his or her partner will be returned to the country whence he or she came, or that the couple will have to leave. A person may lose his job during the 12 months and, as they are phrased at the moment, the rules mean that if a person loses his job at any time after the marriage, the couple will have to return to whatever country they came from.
Another tradition infringed by the rules is the extended family. It is not uncommon for parents, uncles, aunts or friends to take into the family home, whether it is the same house or a house they own, a newly married couple. We should allow and respect that tradition and culture, and not prohibit it as we effectively seem to be doing in the wording of paragraph 15A. The rules as phrased restrict to the wealthy, the clever or the people with good qualifications the right to bring in whom one wants as a partner. But even then there is no guarantee that a person will continue to be allowed to have his partner live with him or her. My constituents will be looking for a change in the rules.

Mr. Waddington: Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend on one point. He has been addressing the House as if the reference in the new rules to accommodation of a person's own or which he occupies himself represents a new provision, a new requirement. The existing rule 46 refers to the need for a husband who is sponsoring the entry of a wife to show that he has accommodation of his own or which he occupies himself. Therefore, there is no change in that.

Mr. Lawler: As I understand it, the new rules will mean that not only must that condition be applied before

the marriage but that it must also be applied more or less indefinitely. The existing situation is that a house or accommodation may be offered by members of the family or by friends for an indefinite period. That will no longer apply and once a couple are married they will have to sustain themselves and find their own accommodation.
Increasingly, the desire of the Asian community is to try to choose a partner from within this country. There are many reasons for that, not least of which is that when two people have been educated under the same system they will probably be more compatible than in the case of someone brought in who has had a completely different education and who may not even speak English. While that is an increasing trend, we still must respect the right of members of the community to exercise their freedom of choice. To restrict people coming to this country and to implement strict criteria is fair. It is also fair to implement firm immigration controls and to change the rules in the way they have been changed. But to replace sexual discrimination with wealth discrimination is not fair, and I hope there will be some changes in the rules.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: From time to time this House lays on what might be called a surrogate debate. This happens when there are huge and tormenting problems which, for various reasons of embarrassment or prior commitment, we prefer not to have debated openly on the floor of the House. We therefore argue about minor matters on the fringe of those great problems. This debate is a case in point. Its only peculiarity is that we are not trying to avoid debating just one such major problem, but three. There are, so to speak, three sleeping dogs which there is a general anxiety and agreement, if possible, not to disturb. I wish to contribute by kicking each in order into some sort of wakefulness.
These changes to the rules have not been brought forward by the Goverment of their own volition. The Government have not come forward with their own legislation and do not commend it on that ground. They say, "We are obliged by an international commitment to invite Parliament to legislate as follows." The claim of this House to make the law of this kingdom is connected with its representative character. It is because we collectively represent the realm, and because we individually and collectively are held responsible through a well-understood and long-practised political process for the laws that we make, that a law of this country has traditionally been made only by Parliament.
The whole basis of the right and claim of the House to legislate is destroyed if we can be obliged to legislate as a result of an interpretation placed by foreign judges upon a document of extreme vagueness in its formulation. There is no reason why such interpretation of such a document should be acceptable to the opinion or the wishes of our people, or that it should be workable and compatible with the rest of our law and with the circumstances of the people of this country. The obligation is an affront to the whole process of parliamentary government and legislation.
We find ourselves in this position as a result of something which the House has never debated. It has never debated the adherence of the United Kingdom to the European convention on human rights, nor, when the right of individual access to that court was from time to time renewed, has it ever been thought fit for the subject to be debated by the House. So for 35 years we have lived—


without debate, without securing the understanding and agreement of the people in the way in which we seek it by our debates in this House — with a system that is incompatible with the claim of Parliament, alone to make the laws of this country.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if this were unusual, but with his great knowledge of history he will recognise that the treaty-making power of this country is a prerogative power of the Crown which was exercised for centuries before the European convention on human rights was dreamed of. Parliament has always thought it appropriate to legislate to bring its laws into line with the treaties agreed by the prerogative.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman because by his intervention he exposes the peculiarity of our adherence to the European convention. Of course, when a treaty is entered into by Her Majesty's Government which involves any change in the laws of this country in order to be implemented, before that treaty can be ratified the Government must secure from Parliament the necessary change in the law of the realm. That has always been the case from the treaty of Utrecht onwards and no doubt before. What has happened here is that the Government are both empowered and required to approach this House and from time to time, to say, "Thus you must legislate, because a body over which we have no control, taking decisions about which we had no foreknowledge, no possiblity of foreknowledge, when we entered into this international commitment, has arrived at a certain ruling." That is the radical incompatibility — which does not exist with any other treaty, except perhaps the European Community treaty — between the legislative power of this House and our adherence to the European Convention. The result is that we shall find ourselves progressively making law which does not have the support or approval of the people, and the Secretary of State for Education and Science had the embarrassment today of having to admit exactly that to the House.
We are contemplating, in the form of these proposed changed rules, one of the consequences of legislative servitude in which we have involved ourselves. It is a legislative servitude we have never sought to justify by debate either to ourselves or to the country, and a servitude of which the renewal has never been thought fit to be brought before the House. One of the benefits of today's debate—there will be others—is that we have secured what I hope can be understood to be an undertaking from both sides of the House that, if there is to be a further extension and renewal of the right of individual access, the opinion of the House will be duly sought in debate before that occurs.
Not unlike the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Home Secretary found himself in a fix. He was stuck with a set of immigration rules which had been struck down by the court. We have before us today the solution to his problem. Broadly speaking, it was to take that which applied to the admission of male fiancés and male spouses and apply it to the admission of female fiancées and wives. That is the essence of the Home Secretary's solution to the quandary in which he was placed by the decision of the European court.
Much to the Home Secretary's surprise, though not to that of many right hon. and hon. Members, that apparently even-handed justice has been found to be less than

satisfactory, and behind this there lies the second of my sleeping dogs—another of these great problems that we have accepted all unwittingly and loaded upon ourselves. It is that of sex discrimination legislation and philosophy, which has been important in its impact upon our citizenship law, though it influenced our immigration law even before it had its impact upon our law of citizenship.
In the British Nationality Act 1981, we succeeded, except transitionally, in eliminating every trace of differentiation between one sex and the other for the purposes of the exercise or transmission of nationality. I do not intend to revert to our debates — some of us believe that this was a profound mistake — during the passage of the British Nationality Bill. However, I want to point out the effect which has run through to these rules.
It is a proposition — and we would view any disagreement with it as repugnant—that those belonging to a country, those settled in a country, those who are citizens of a country, should be free to wed whom they will from wherever they come. It would be difficult to imagine anything more insulting than repudiation of that proposition.
However, as a result of the changes that we have made in our law of nationality, we have endowed both sexes with the capability of conferring the acquisition—or the opportunity of acquisition — of national status and of rights such as the right of abode. The immediate consequence was seen in the rise of the spectre of the male fiancé: it was realised that in those circumstances it would be possible for a woman settled here to confer the right of abode upon a male, whether a fiancé or a husband and immediately defences were erected in the form of the order that has been struck down by the European Court of Human Rights.
The Home Secretary says, "I shall solve the problem. I shall treat both sexes the same. I shall apply the same rules to husbands and wives and to male and female fiancés. What is wrong with that?"
What is wrong with it, is that when we apply those rules, with which we have been living, satisfactorily more or less, over a number of years, to a wife and thus hold a man who is to confer by marriage the status of abode and of citizenship upon his wife to the requirements and the inquisitions of the old rule, we are all aghast and offended by it.
That is not the fault of the Home Secretary. It is our own fault for what we have done in our legislation against sex discrimination. We have legislated a lie, which flies in the face of facts as they really are and which flies in the face of the respective functions and roles of man and woman in society. We have legislated in the face of the truth and, as always happens when we do that, we find ourselves involved in irresolvable conflict.
So that is the second of the questions which we are endeavouring to hold at bay in this surrogate debate—how long we can sustain the fiction that there is an identity of function and role in society and in nationally between man and woman, as we have been endeavouring to assert in our legislation.

Ms. Clare Short: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has followed the development of British immigration law in great detail over a very long period. He has implied today that the right of women to marry husbands from abroad arises because of the changes that were made in the recent British Nationality Act. However, that is not the


case, as I am sure he will confirm. We have been arguing for a long time about whether women should have a right to marry husbands from abroad. The right was given in 1968, taken away and then restored in changes to the immigration rules long before the passage of the British Nationality Act.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Lady because she helps me to make my point. It is when marriage is endowed with the ability to confer status that we run into these difficulties. It was the status she possessed of having right to abode, that would be conferred by a women exercising her choice to marry whom she would from abroad, which led us to erect these barriers—or, rather, these sieves—to limit the use which could be made of that right.
So I have come to the last and most ferocious of the sleeping dogs. No one can listen to a debate upon these rules without being struck by their pettiness, their ineffectiveness and their disproportion and irrelevance in what they attempt in relation to the problem with which they seek to cope.
The word "immigration" is still clung to by millions of our fellow citizens as a euphemism which helps them to be protected from the prospect — the reality — which successive Governments have steadily refused to acknowledge or allow to be openly debated on the Floor of the House in its full dimensions. When one third or more of major cities and other areas of the country are populated or will be populated by those who in important respects do not identify themselves with the rest of the population, it is a delusion to imagine that any rules that we try to frame will prevent those populations from being replenished and refreshed from the immense human reservoir with which they are connected in the continent from which they originated. It is a delusion to think that one can have a resident population of millions closely related in sentiment and in every other way to huge populations in the rest of the globe and still prevent the natural consequences of that from following.
Hence, we endeavour by such a debate as this to protect ourselves from grappling with the true magnitude, the true reality of the fact that the new Commonwealth population of this country by reason of its age structure is destined inexorably, apart from any further inflow, to double in the foreseeable future—we endeavour to protect ourselves from acknowledging that fact and from having to spell out to ourselves and to our fellow citizens whether we find it acceptable or not and what we believe its consequences will be. That is the third and greatest of the subjects which we have been holding at bay in this surrogate debate; but one day we shall have to look it in the face.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I have not taken part before in a debate on immigration; probably the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is right that we have not debated this subject, and we have been somewhat amiss.
I have listened with great interest to the points which have been made. I would say to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that there is a dictum in the media that, if one is being criticised from all sides of the political spectrum, one has probably got it right. I would commend that viewpoint to the House.
For four years, I was a member of Birmingham community relations council. I found that experience thoroughly enjoyable and deeply enlightening. I was educated into discovering the differences in style and attitudes in a city with dozens and dozens of minorities. I learned about thalassaemia and sickle cell anaemia, and the tragic effects of kinship on congenital malformations in families. I was able in a small way to help set up services for families with sickle cell anaemia, and the first voluntary centre for the elderly West Indians in Birmingham, so I have been much involved in all these services. All of us in the Conservative party in Birmingham learned that putting up a Hindu candidate in a ward where the majority of the electors were Pakistanis was not going to lead to success, particularly when the Labour party had the wit to put up a Moslem. I learned most of all from these people what it means to honour God in their daily lives, and to respect and care for their elderly, and I do really believe that they have a great deal to teach the host community in some asspects of these social services.
Like the first two speakers in the debate, my grandparents were immigrants, but I also had the opportunity of going through an immigration procedure myself some years ago when I decided to go to the United States in order to work and found that, since I could not get a work permit, I had to go through immigration procedure. It took many months to get clearance. That involved interviews in the United Kingdom, for myself and, for my relatives in the United States, and involved them in considerable expense. My family and sponsors in America had to go through all the palaver of swearing their incomes and savings before notaries public to satisfy the authorities that in no circumstances would I become a charge on public funds. Indeed, had I become such a charge, I would have been deported at once; that was made quite clear right from the beginning and at all stages of the immigration procedure.
I think that that approach is absolutely right, and I am glad to see that one change tonight is that the existing requirements relating to maintenance and accommodation are being strengthened. As I understand it, in future the entry clearance officer must be satisfied that the couple will jointly provide adequate maintenance and accommodation for themselves and their dependants. If, during the initial limited leave period, they subsequently have recourse to public funds, then their leave may be curtailed or their application for extension of stay refused.
I heard the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—who has now left the Chamber—say that he thought that the families had the right to settle wherever they wanted. There is not a country in the world that is worth living in which accepts that sort of proposition. Almost all nations have immigration procedures, and we are not the only nation to have strict rules. Indeed, in many countries, as my experience in the United States shows, the rules are a great deal stricter.
I was sad to hear the criticism from all sides, and I think that the Government have responded with responsibility and perhaps with some ingenuity to the court's decision. The court said that we were discriminating. The Government accepted the ruling, and they could simply have opened the doors a little wider. Instead, they decided to enforce equality by levelling down, so the figures should not be changed by all that much, and we look forward to seeing exactly what will happen.
There are Conservative Members, and perhaps Opposition Members, who are opposed to the changes simply because they have been forced by the European Court. I have to say to them, and particularly to my hon. and very dear friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Budgen) — [Interruption.] My hon. Friend was not in fact listening as he was talking to my hon. and dear friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). To be more serious, I say to him that just because the Government are obliged to take action by the European Court does not make such action automatically disreputable. I believe that those of my colleagues who are anti-Europe and take that stand in the debate actually diminish what they say by their approach to Europe.
Then we have the Labour party. I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Gorton, who tossed the racialist tag rather freely around. I would say to him—and I hope that he reads this in Hansard tomorrow—that abuse has never been a substitute for argument. Simply abusing Conservative Members who take a genuine interest and concern in these matters — [HON. MEMBERS: "He is in the Chamber."] I apologise to the right hon. Member for Gorton, who was sitting on a Back Bench, and I refrain from saying that that is where he belongs.
However, the right hon. Gentleman forbore to mention that the law which we have been discusing was that applied by the Labour Government when they were in office. He did not remind us that, in the 1960s, the Labour Government promised to repeal the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, but in 1968 actually extended its scope, removing from United Kingdom passport holders their right to come here. He complained about the control of entry of husbands and fiancés, but he did not actually mention that in 1970 the Labour Government introduced rules which banned entry of husbands, save at the discretion of the Secretary of State. That was one of the last acts of that Labour Government. He did not say that the last Labour Administration relaxed the husband and fiancé rules after coming into office in 1974 and then discovered, less than three years later, that they could not sustain this position, and the rules were tightened again in 1977.
The Labour party certainly has a view on immigration. The problem is that it keeps changing it. It seems to depend on whether it is in office or not.
Those who might be tagged pro-immigration will naturally be opposed to tightening up the rules in any way. I say to them that I respect that viewpoint, but the British people, including my electorate, my constituents in south Derbyshire, would find that view absolutely untenable.
We invited people to come here in the 1950s. The right hon. Member for South Down was Minister of Health in 1960 when advertisements were still appearing in the West Indian magazines and newspapers inviting people to come and work in our hospitals and in our transport departments and so on, and they came. They continue to do the work for which they came. They do the hardest and meanest jobs in the public services, particularly in the National Health Service. Their contribution to this nation since they arrived at our invitation has been incalculable. In my view, they are entitled not only to stay, but to have that contribution recognised.

Mr. Neil Hamilton (Talton): What does the hon. Lady mean by coming here "at our invitation"? As I understand

the state of the law at that time, there was no way in which we could have prevented them coming here, because at that stage we did not distinguish between citizens of one country, a member of the Commonwealth, and another. It was therefore, as the inevitable consequence of our failure to define citizenship in this country that this immigration took place. Therefore, it was in no sense in response to a formal invitation of any kind on behalf of the British people that this immigration took place.

Mrs. Currie: In the personal scrapbooks of people who used to be my constituents in Birmingham, I have seen cuttings from magazines to which they responded which were placed all over the Commonwealth, inviting people to come here and work. London Transport particularly put in a very large number of these advertisements, and said not only that jobs were available, but that accommodation would be found and that there were no restrictions on settlement. If that is not encouragement, I do not know what is. The adverts were still being put in by several Government and local authority Departments right through until the door was shut.
I say to colleagues who do not like the rules to be tightened up that, with more than 3 million unemployed, it would be crazy for us to let the control of immigration go in any way. We must have an immigration policy. That has been recognised by every Government since 1961. It is recognised by every nation in the world. With overcrowding and racial tension in our major cities, where our minorities want to go, it is not and never has been in their interests to allow unrestricted access, as some hon. Members would want. I have heard the leaders of such communities say so.
Nor is it in the United Kingdom's interests or within the country's power to solve the problems of other countries by permitting unrestricted access, whether they be Tamils, Hong Kongers or Gibraltarians. It cannot be right and if it were attempted, the outcry here would be considerable.
The constant pressure to enter the United Kingdom is a tribute to the prosperity of this country which can pay all the benefits about which we have heard, and it is a sad reflection on the continued poverty of the countries from which people come. The matter will not be resolved until those countries are able to offer their people a better and more prosperous way of life. The struggle to come to grips with this pressure is never easy and no Government have ever enjoyed putting such legislation before the House. All Governments have tried to tackle the problem. They have succeeded more or less. In 1961, there were about 140,000 immigrants; in 1984 there were about 26,000 from the old Commonwealth and foreign countries and about 25,000 from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. I regard that as a success. In 18 of the past 20 years, immigration to Britain has been more or less balanced by emigration. I regard that as a success as well, especially when we take account of the fact that movement out of Britain was for many decades, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, the only way in which many of our young people could have a future.
My right hon. and learned Friend's response to the court's decision is wise, responsible and appropriate and it deserves our support.

Mr. Greville Janner: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs.


Currie). I understand that some of her constituents are not what are sometimes described as indigenous. She rightly paid tribute to them and their way of life. She is wrong to claim that the Opposition believe that there should be no immigration rules. I at once associate myself with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said—we believe that there must be a fair, decent and honourable immigration policy. We are against a policy that is unfair, unreasonable, racist, sexist and impossible properly to administer.
My Asian constituents complain constantly not so much about the rules as about how they operate. They also complain about immigration officers being enabled to hold people up at ports of entry, interrogate them—often in a language that they do not understand — create misunderstandings which lead to ill will and, ultimately, prevent a policy created by unfair rules from operating acceptably to hundreds of thousands of British citizens.
I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). It was fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South talking about people being encouraged to come to Britain. I remember when people in the new Commonwealth were encouraged to come here as nurses and to do jobs which people here were not prepared to do. I seem to remember that the right hon. Member for South Down was anxious that we should have such people. I have been told—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that he was Minister of Health when we were encouraging people from the West Indies to come here as nurses.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. and learned Member has been misinformed. The recruitment was carried out by the regional boards and the hospital authorities. At no stage was I in any way involved in decisions governing recruitment.

Mr. Janner: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Health at the time and I believe that the Minister of Health had some responsibility for the recruitment policies of health authorities. There it is, but anyway, I do not remember his denouncing such policies at the time. I believe that even he would understand that those who are now entitled to live here and be treated equally are entitled also to feel that their treatment is fair and that they have the same rights as all other citizens in regard to being joined by their wives or husbands or children.
Leicester has absorbed a considerable number of people from different cultures and countries in a wholly admirable way. About one fifth of the city's population is Asian. They have entered the life of the city in every respect, including the political life. Their objection is not to immigration rules but to the unfair way in which those rules work. This opportunity to make the rules fairer has not been grasped. I should like to pay my tribute to those people who, behind the scenes, try to help hon. Members to use the rules in such a way as to make them sometimes administered with compassion. I pay tribute to the Minister, who is occasionally able, even within the ambit of the rules, to help us with the fair and kindly administration of the system. Unfortunately, he is bound by the rules. He had the opportunity to change them but has not made them acceptable.

Ms. Clare Short: My understanding of the rules is that they are advisory and do not bind the Minister, who has discretion to allow in whomever he wants to let in.

Mr. Janner: There is a discretion in the rules which is normally exercised only in accordance with general principles. The overall discretion is one which Ministers, with their huge trains and trolleys of cases, exercise with some care. I have no complaint about the exercise of care in the admission of people to Britain. My complaint is that the rules are not basically fair and are not administered in a way which is accepted as fair.
I associate myself with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said. It was churlish of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South to make her remark about the Back Benches.

Mrs. Currie: That is where he was.

Mr. Janner: I thought that afterwards, she would wish to apologise, but she did not. I suppose that "apology" is not a word that appears in her vocabulary. I thought that my right hon. Friend put the case eloquently, fairly, reasonably and in a statesmanlike way. I wish to add from the Back Benches, where I serve with pride, just two or three questions to the Minister. [Interruption.] I have served on the Back Benches with some pride for 15 years but if, after the next general election, I were to receive an invitation of some sort, I should consider it with care.
I should like to ask the Minister serious questions about the status of children accompanying mothers that I do not find easy to answer. Under the current rules, once it is proved that the parent has sole responsibility for supporting the child, the child can enter and is given immediate leave to settle.
New paragraph 50A of the rules provides for the admittance of a child for an initial period of up to 12 months. Presumably that is not to determine whether the primary purpose of admission is whether the child may marry. After 12 months, the Home Office can reconsider the position, but we have no details of what that will involve. It is likely that the Home Office will expect the same conditions to be satisfied after the 12-month period as were satisfied at the British high commission at the time when the application was made. If so, the Minister should say so, because it will create an intolerable position.
At the British high commission, the child must show that he or she is under the age of 18, unmarried and that the parents can accommodate him or her without recourse to public funds. What happens after the 12-month period if the child is then over the age of 18, is married or if the parents cannot accommodate the child without recourse to public funds — perhaps because they are among the 4 million other citizens unfortunate enough to be out of work?
The other major point is in relation to what happens under substituted paragraphs 41(d) and (e) and 46, which provide that maintenance and accommodation must be provided for the entrant without recourse to public funds. The sponsors and parents would have to declare that they will support and accommodate the child indefinitely. What happens to those who lose their jobs or have been unable to obtain one? What happens to parents who were in employment—many of them for many years—and who become ill? Will the child then be required to leave? If that is the case, it must be clearly stated. If it is not, the Minister must reassure the House, so that hon. Members


on both sides who have to deal with these cases know what to tell those who ask what will happen to their children. I hope that we can give them the assurance that, if children are deported after the 12-month period, it will not be because during that time the parents became ill, unemployed or fell on to other hard times. We would appreciate an explanation of the position.
The most excellent self-help neighbourhood centre in Leicester has asked about the waiting list for entry clearance. What will be the effect, if any, of the new rules? Currently, women have to obtain entry clearance in their country of origin and the waiting time had reached 23 months by the end of 1984. What provisions are the Government making to reduce the already extensive queues? Are people in this category, as in others, being kept waiting in an effort to deter them from wanting to come to this country? Will the Government provide for the increasing number of applications, albeit in temporary and restricted categories, that may occur when the new rules come into force? What will happen to those already in the queue?
I have always believed that if, under the law, people are entitled to come to this country, they should be allowed to do so. They should not be kept waiting in queues—either those that are involuntary or, still less, those that are used to ensure that the waiting time deters people from exercising what they believe to be their right.
This country has a proud, decent, honourable, happy society in which generations and multitudes of immigrants from many lands, dating back over many centuries—including all four of my grandparents—have come to this country and lived in harmony and served the country well, whether in the forces, in public life or in private life. They form part of our society.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) mention Gibraltar in relation to the number of people wishing to come to Britain. I know of the hon. and learned Gentleman's deep interest in Gibraltar, as his father had before him. The people of Gibraltar are not required to apply for immigration because, during the last Parliament we ensured that they were full British citizens.

Mr. Janner: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his managing to intrude the people on Gibraltar into this debate. I am sorry that he is not staying to take the opportunity of joining the long queue to speak. I have great sympathy with the people of Gibraltar and will be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that they are fairly treated.
I ask only that the Minister reconsider these rules so that the opportunity available to him is used to try to give people the feeling that there will be fairness in society for all and an understanding that the rules can be changed to make them firm, fair and reasonable so that they do not discriminate, in appearance and in reality, against sections of the community which are entitled to the same treatment as others, but which under these rules are not getting it.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Whenever decisions are made concerning immigration and immigration rules and controls, there is bound to be someone who is not happy. There is always a group of people who have

particular circumstances that are not catered for by the rules. That is unfortunate, but I know that my colleagues in the Government are fully aware of many of the problems and do their best to achieve a balance between the problems and the facts. They make many humane decisions, which we all welcome.
I must place on record my thanks to the Minister, who has helped many of my cases in a most humane way. Indeed, he supports and helps all hon. Members with the problems of our constituents. One major fact remains—that while, in a Utopian world, we would like complete freedom for people to move from one part of the world to another with no restriction, in reality that is not possible. Controls are necessary and rules and regulations must be laid down and monitored.
Regardless of what is said about British immigration control, we have a long history of welcoming people from all lands to our shores, but that must be controlled in a disciplined manner. I can confidently say that all sections of the British community support the maintenance of disciplined control. Many ethnic communities—I have a larg community in my constituency with whom I speak regularly — are well established in Britain and their leaders agree that immigration must be controlled or their communities will be put under pressure.
In fact, some of my community think that it should not be necessary now for young women to wish to bring in fiancés. That opinion has been formed by the community leaders, although it is recognised that it will need to continue for some years yet. The pressure will be economic and social and, if not properly managed, could create problems with all the population in the United Kingdom.
The implications of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights create a position that must be handled with care. It has been said in various quarters that the current immigration rules discriminate on the grouds of sex, and so they do. The House might be surprised to learn that, as a woman, I do not attack the rules on that ground only We all too often use the words "sex discrimination" without first looking at the basic problems. My view is simple; I agree with the judgment. If a man who is a non-British citizen but has established permanent residence can bring in a wife, clearly a woman who is a non-British citizen but who has established permanent residence should firmly have the right to bring in a husband.
I say that purely on the basis of establishing and maintaining the family unit. As many of us know, to many of our immigrant communities the family unit is slightly different from our own. They have long been used to living apart for many years and then seeking to bring the family together at some time later in life. The stability of any society is based on the stability of the family unit, and we should do all we can to foster that stability. It can clearly be shown that performance and stability are related to the family.
While I agree with the judgment and its implications, we cannot allow the changes to be made without measuring the consequences and creating the right level of control, and I am pleased to learn that under the changes men will be allowed to join women who are settled here.
The primary purpose rule, which, I appreciate, can be very trying in certain circumstances, is an essential safeguard against the abuse of marriage for immigration purposes, and it must be maintained. I know from experience in my constituency that it can be the cause of


many problems. However, the leaders of many ethnic communities will admit that it is an essential control that prevents many serious heartaches and social problems for young women. The fact that the primary purpose rule will in future apply to women, to avoid further allegations of sex discrimination, is appropriate and is in line with the thinking on which the case was originally taken to the European Court.
At present, the rules lay down the necessity for men to show that they can maintain and accommodate their wives without recourse to public funds. Presumably, women will now have to show that they can maintain and accommodate their husbands without recourse to public funds.
The new rules impose a strengthened maintenance and accommodation requirement by using the word "adequate." The Minister should clarify the position in that respect because the rules need to be spelt out in detail. Clear guidelines must be given and the Minister should quantify "adequate" in financial terms in relation to maintenance and accommodation. For example, the standard required should be explained. Will the standard required of women be weighted in some way, or will there be strict equality?
The requirement may of itself discriminate against women who wish to bring in husbands, for it is often difficult for a woman to show her financial stability and her ability to provide support for a man. For example, it is frequently more difficult for a woman to obtain a mortgage on property or to get a lease or loan.
I will not go into the whole sphere of the financial problems that women can experience. Nevertheless, those problems must be measured within the rules, if not in their wording then in the spirit and application of the controls.
Accepting the need for clarification of the maintenance requirements, I support the changes. However, I reserve my position to alter my view if the proposals again turn out to be discriminatory in a negative sense.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Despite my gratitude for having been called to speak, I hope that hon. Members will not think it churlish if I reflect briefly on the fact that the impetus for this debate came from what I might call the nocturnal stamina of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who sat outside the Public Bill Office in the early hours of the morning. Unfortunately, the usual channels then got to work, and whatever liquid flows through those murky channels led to the initiative being removed by the Government from right hon. and hon. Members who signed the prayer which was tabled by my hon. Friend. However, albeit in the face of rules which give rise to serious concern, we welcome the opportunity to ventilate some of the issues that relate to immigration and which rise directly from these rules under debate.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was right to refer to this as a surrogate debate. It is surrogate, above all, because those ethnic minorities whom it concerns are not able to represent themselves in the debate. Because of the vagaries of our electoral system and the fact that they are not represented among hon. Members here, they must rely on such wisdom of hon. Members as there is.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he does not represent the ethnic minorities in his constituency?

Mr. Carlile: The ethnic minorities do not have the opportunity under our existing electoral system to represent themselves—[Interruption.]—because of the nature of that system, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well.
The views that many in the ethnic minorities would seek to put forward have already been given to a great extent, not least by the courageous speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler). At least he, though disagreeing with many aspects of Government policy, did not have to put up with the hysterical hyenas of the Tory right who interrupted repeatedly during the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
I remind the right hon. Member for South Down that time has moved on and that there are many in the House and great numbers in the country—I believe that they represent a majority—who cannot accept the narrow and — I use the word in neutral terms — somewhat nationalistic approach that he expressed in his eloquent contribution.
Many of us believe, with the support of the majority of in the community, that narrow nationalism has been the cause of much anguish, bloodshed and unnecessary dispute this century. The supranational responsibility imposed by treaty obligations — such as those we recognise as signatories to the European convention on human rights — provide a welcome and important protection for the citizens of this country — black and white, male and female—against the abuses that the Government may seek to impose on them.
My copy of the European convention on human rights is encased in a dark blue cover. I have a strong suspicion, having regard to the reluctance of the Home Secretary to commit himself further to ratify the right of personal petition to the Commission, that we shall soon see the European convention soaked in blue rinse; for I have a strong suspicion that the Government intend, but are concealing that intention from us, to remove the right of individual petition to the European Commission.
In 1966, a three-year experiment was begun by the then Labour Government. That experiment was renewed by a Conservative Government and later by a Labour Government. However, we are apparently still in the experimental stage, nearly 20 years after the Wilson Government first granted the right of individual petition. Before then it had taken that Government and others many years to come round to the view that the right should be available.
Why have we been in receipt only of the benefit of experimental periods during which we have had the right to petition? I welcome the answer that was given to an intervention of mine by the right hon. Member for Gorton that he at least is in favour of extending that right on a permanent basis. However, I doubt whether many of his hon. Friends would have the courage to say the same; it was obvious that he was making an off-the-cuff remark. We have grave reason to doubt the Government's commitment in view of what the Home Secretary has said. I remind the Home Secretary and the Minister of State that the only countries that do not give a right of individual


petition and that have ratified the convention are Greece, Turkey, Malta and Cyprus. I hope that we will not be added to that list.
The procedures need to be reformed, not least because of the backlog of cases. The British Government, who rightly have shown enthusiasm for cutting the backlog of cases in domestic courts, were not prepared to agree the reforms proposed by Scandinavian Governments at the recent conference of Ministers of the European Commission of Human Rights. I suspect that the British Government's refusal to speed up procedures is yet another attempt by them to stall the effectiveness of the European convention. The British Government have taken a minimalist approach to the convention and show all the signs of continuing to do so.
It is high time that the European convention was incorporated into domestic law. I challenge the Government and the Labour party to say that they will incorporate a European convention into British law so that domestic remedies are available for breaches of the European convention on human rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that the United Kingdom is in breach of the convention by not providing domestic remedies. In international law the European Court of Human Rights is correct. I ask of the British Government a small but important step. I ask them to accept the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and to bring the United Kingdom into line with the many countries that have taken the step of incorporating domestic remedies. Those remedies have proved effective and have not affected the efficacy of Government.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is there not another advantage of taking that action — that if the convention were the subject of litigation in the English courts it is likely that the judgments would be more in accord with our common law practices and customs?

Mr. Carlile: I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I should like a corpus of British law to develop which applies common law principles and incorporates those common law freedoms enshrined in the European convention.
I regret that the new rules do not adopt even one of the 56 recommendations by the Commission for Racial Equality in its report dated February 1985 on immigration control procedures. That followed careful investigation of procedures. The rule changes would have presented an ideal opportunity to rectify the inhumanity and degrading treatment experienced by people throughout the world under the current rules.
The new rules represent the most grudging adoption possible of the European Court of Human Rights rulings. They clearly demonstrate the British Government's lack of will to adhere to the principle of the European convention. The new rules fail to rectify many anomalies. One of the many anomalies which will still exist is that sex discrimination against women will continue in relation to work permits. Women work permit holders will not be able to bring in a foreign husband, but male work permit holders will be albe to bring in their foreign wives. How on earth can the Government say that such discrimination is fair or just and accords with the principles that British Governments have ratified in article 8 of the convention?
Under the new rules, many people face severe hardship. Immigrant couples will not be allowed to marry and live

in their parents' homes. They will not be allowed to receive state benefits of any type. If they fall upon hard times or become ill, they will risk being thrown out of the United Kingdom. I see that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) nods with enthusiasm. What a disgrace! If such people fall ill or on hard times and hon. Members write to the Minister about their case, the chances are that even if he decides to change his mind it will be too late.
The legislation that deals with homeless persons will now specifically exclude immigrants under a new provision in paragraph 1 of the new rules which defines "public funds" as including accommodation under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. If people who have come here suddenly become homeless—that can arise for many reasons—they will face the prospect under the new rules of being sent back whence they came. That will apply even if they have been thrown out by a cruel spouse. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is nodding again. That is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Terry Dicks: The point that I am trying to make is that there is a limit to the burden that the people of this country can face, particularly when it comes to homelessness. Some of my constituents have to forgo access to council housing to make way for immigrants who come here almost destitute. It seems wrong that people should be able to come here, when they cannot go to any other country, to take up public funds whenever the need arises.

Mr. Carlile: The bigotry expressed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington means that he believes that even if people become unintentionally homeless they risk being sent home.
One of the new provisions enables an immigration officer to extract financial guarantees from a relative or friend of a person seeking entry to the United Kingdom. It specifies that such persons are liable under the Supplementary Benefit Act 1976. As a result, friends and relatives of would-be immigrants will effectively be blackmailed into giving financial guarantees simply because they are due to meet a friend or relative at the airport and are anxious to secure their entry.
Another serious effect of the changes in the rules was brought to my attention by a solicitor in London who specialises in assisting businesses and business people in obtaining entry clearance. Her practice is specifically engaged in providing the British economy with a boost from the entrepreneurial activities and the financial expertise of those who wish to bring their money and skills from outside the United Kingdom for the benefit of the United Kingdom. Substantial foreign companies and business people are affected.
I refer to the change in the rules for entry clearance procedure. The effect of those changes is that nationals of all countries must now make an application for entry clearance in the country where they are living. Up to now, people who were neither what are called visa nationals nor Commonwealth nationals could have an application made on their behalf by an agent in the United Kingdom. For example, a solicitor like my correspondent could apply on behalf of a business or business person for entry clearance
The existing procedure does not stop the Home Office from making the most strenuous investigation into the bona fides of any applicant, such as a business resident or


residents as the sole representative of a foreign company. It has always been open to the Home Office to require that such a person should submit to a consular interview, but there are two important effects of the change in entry clearance procedures in this category. First, a British agent such as a solicitor or an accountant in the City of London can no longer initiate applications of this sort for their foreign clients. Secondly, all those foreign clients are restricted to applying in the country where they live. This can be extremely inconvenient and is often highly inappropriate.
The change produces an absurd result, and I ask the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to listen to this, because I am sure that he has an eye to the economic interests of the country even if he does not care a fig about immigrants. The change produces the nonsensical result that a visa national does not have to apply in the country in which he lives. That is to say that a Lebanese, an Iranian or an Iraqi does not have to apply in Lebanon, Iran or Iraq. However, a non-visa national, for example an American, can apply for entry clearance only in the country where he lives. A Canadian, a Commonwealth national, under this absurd rule, can apply only in the country in which he lives.
What is more, the letter of consent procedure is no longer available. Thus, it is no longer possible for someone acting on behalf of a foreign company, such as my correspondent, to apply on behalf of the company to this country by means of a letter of consent. So these rules have the effect of frustrating foreign investment in this country.
Further, the even greater nonsense in this change in entry clearance applications is that almost invariably, applications that are made to consular posts abroad are referred to the Home Office for decision, so that there will be no decrease in the work that has to be done in the Home Office, but merely an increase in the work that has to be done in consular posts. Therefore, there will result delays, with a consequent decline in investment in the British economy.
I ask the Minister of State, Home Office, who is here now, and the Home Secretary to examine this matter carefully before taking steps down the road that could lead to disincentives to investment in Britain in comparison with the incentives offered for foreign investment in countries that compete with us.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. and learned Gentleman is raising such a small point that we should dispose of it now. We thought that we were making a sensible change, because the effect of the present system is that our immigration department is used as a mere post office. Applications are lodged with us, but as the person is abroad and has to get his entry clearance abroad, we are merely a post box and the matter has then to be referred abroad, which is a complete waste of resources. That is why we are making the sensible change, which I thought that everybody in the House who understood it would acclaim.

Mr. Carlile: I have passed on to the hon. and learned Gentleman the views of those who are experienced in dealing with such applications. I ask the Government to examine the situation carefully before relying on the glib assertion that has just been made.
As a result of these rules, the Government will have failed signally to meet their treaty obligations under the European convention, because there will remain sex discrimination in family life, which is against the European convention. They will have failed because there will also remain the lack of domestic remedy, which is against the European convention and because of the lack of any provision for the independent right of enjoyment of family life in the United Kingdom in some cases, which, is also against the European convention.
Whether we be signatories to the European convention or not, whether we have domestic remedies under the European convention or not, until British immigration law honours the fundamental rights that are enshrined in the European convention, we shall not be able to hold up our heads in the world and say that we have a fair and just system of immigration regulation. These rules do not give us a fair and just system to govern immigration.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) dealt with the two most important points in this debate—two of the sleeping dogs referred to by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) — namely, the details of these immigration rules and the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights.
I have watched or taken part in almost every debate on immigration since I got into the House in February 1974. One of the dogs slept soundly between 1974 and 1979. We were hardly able to debate immigration in that period, because the Labour Government of that time ran as strict an immigration policy as they were able to do, while on the other side the Tory Benches wanted to see ways in which immigration policy could be made stricter. In particular, Lord Whitelaw, who represented the liberal wing of the Tory party, was extremely sensitive to any allegations that either he or anybody else remotely connected with the Tory party might be, in the jovial word of the Labour party, racist.
If anybody made any reasonable suggestion about immigration from the Tory Benches between 1974 and 1979, and if it were then countered by the jibe of racist, the proper response for any well brought up politician was to burst into tears and keep quiet thereafter. It is at least healthier that we are now able to debate immigration and those very difficult questions of, first, the rights of individuals who want to come into the country or, having come into the country, to bring members of their family here, and, secondly, the authority of the state and the will of the majority. At least now we have an atmosphere in which we can debate these things.
I recollect the tension when we had those occasional debates between 1974 and 1979. I recollect the frisson of horror lest somebody from the Tory Benches might be accused of being immoderate. Now we debate these matters in the relatively unmalicious and noisy way that is part of the agreeable custom of this House. This is a much healthier atmosphere and it is an essential part of the duties of any domestic Parliament.
It is fortunate that since 1979 we have debated this issue on many occasions. Immigration rules were introduced immediately after the Tories won the general election in 1979. There were a number of debates about the later immigration rules. I am pleased to say that the Government suffered their only defeat on the Floor of the


House over the immigration rules as part of the compromises and disputes that are necessary in this place in order to reach a lawful accommodation between the demands of individuals and the majority voice of authority.

Ms. Clare Short: For the sake of the record, my understanding is that the rules about the right of women to bring into this country from abroad fiancés and husbands were changed twice between 1974 and 1979, so they must have been debated at least twice.

Mr. Budgen: It is perfectly true that the rules were changed. The way in which they were changed is a tribute to what I was saying about Dr. Summerskill. She was a Minister with whom I am sure the hon. Lady would find much to disagree. It is also a tribute to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) who understood well the resentment that relatively unrestrained immigration created in this country. As part of the cross-Bench conspiracy on this issue, there was very little debate of either the wider immigration issues or the details. I am sure that the hon. Lady is right in saying that there must have been a debate, but my recollection is that it was only a debate for an hour and a half after 10 o'clock. There was very little general debate on this most important subject. However, in both this Parliament and the preceding Parliament there have been many debates about immigration and at last we have achieved some form of domestic consensus about what our immigration policy should be. Now along comes the European Court of Human Rights and says that something further must be done.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The memory of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South West (Mr. Budgen) is shockingly at fault. I was here when, on a Friday, Mrs. Jeger moved a private Member's Bill. It was not a one and a half hour debate. The hon. Gentleman must not say things like that; he must not think out loud wrongly.

Mr. Budgen: I do not understand the intervention of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I do not believe that any change in the rules which could have been made by the then Government would have arisen from a private Member's Bill that was introduced on a Friday. Perhaps he will forgive me if I say that according to my recollection of that period there was not so much debate then about immigration as there has been since 1979.

Mr. Flannery: An undertaking was given on a Friday by the Front Bench that the rules would be changed.

Mr. Budgen: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. At this moment he may be able to remember these matters more accurately than I. I am sure that he is well-respected for his encyclopaedic knowledge of the proceedings of this House, but perhaps I may be allowed to proceed to my second point, concerning the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), whether the European convention on human rights should become part of our domestic law. The right hon. Member for South Down described the European convention as an international commitment, a description that I find very helpful. One of the difficulties in dealing with the European convention is that in this country it is described as though it were domestic law. A number of

very important consequences arise from that misdescription. It has none of the characteristics that are important for domestic law.
First, if one looks—and very few people have looked—at the details of the convention, one sees that it proceeds not by detailed directives about what shall be done in a particular circumstance but by way of general declarations. To give an example which may upset the Opposition, article 10.2 refers to the right to freedom of expression. It says that such a freedom may be exercised within the constraints of what is necessary in a democratic society.
Those of my constituents who disagree with the race relations legislation might be able to petition the European Court of Human Rights and argue, that for example, their right to freedom of expression had been constrained in breach of article 10 of the convention. That illustrates one of the great dangers of the convention: it does not have the quality of certainty which the law ought to have. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary illustrated that point by saying that he believed that the present rules are not in breach of the convention. However, when he was a junior Home Office Minister I remember that the Home Secretary at that time, now Lord Whitelaw, assured the House time after time that the rules were in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights and that there would be no trouble.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asserted that the present rules will be attacked with success. What is more, he said that a number of people in the pipeline have been denied some right or other that they wish to claim under the old rules. He said that they ought to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and that perhaps they would succeed. He may be right. Even the most cursory glance at the convention shows that these articles are drafted in such general terms that there can be no certainty about how the court will rule in any future case.
It is worse than that. What has been described as an international commitment is misdescribed as domestic law. Extremely controversial decisions of a political nature are involved, and such decisions are inevitably attacked. When the law is attacked and when judges are attacked, damage is done to the fabric of our society.
If judges start to decide delicate questions about immigration rules and freedom of speech, and abrogate to themselves duties which should be discharged by domestic Parliaments, it is inevitable that they will be treated with the same lack of respect as politicians. We shall see that increasingly if by chance the plea that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery makes, for the convention to be incorporated into British law, is granted.
Let us think of almost any circumstances in which a British judge might hold that he disagreed with a piece of domestic legislation or an action of the Government, adopt a highly controversial and political position, and then necessarily be attacked.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, provided that judges are politically impartial, the danger of which he is speaking is greatly exaggerated? Does he agree that already we have seen judges steadfastly and determinedly making judgments on human rights and public law issues which have been courageous and maintained without any risk to the security of the judiciary?

Mr. Budgen: I believe that in general the way in which our English laws are framed, in narrow and specific terms, is to be commended, because it relieves judges of wide political discretion.
Article 14 of the convention, in very general terms, prohibits discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion. If judges are intervening on such wide terms, they are taking to themselves discretions which should be discharged by politicians and not by judges. One has only to think of the difficulties encountered when judges are exercising their narrow powers under trade union legislation. When they give a judgment adverse to the labour interest, they are often—and in my opinion dangerously—attacked. How much more would they be attacked if they were exercising a very much wider discretion under the convention?
If we go much further with support for the convention, there will be a further consequence. There are those in this House who are fervent supporters of our continued commitment to the EEC. As a matter of technicality, there is no connection between the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights and the EEC, but in the public mind the convention is seen as a part of the EEC. The more the convention interferes, the more it makes a fool of itself, and the more we are seen to be ruled by foreign judges, the more resentment we shall find against the EEC. It is unjust but it will certainly happen. I agree that it is nothing to do with the EEC but I assert that it will be seen as such.

Ms. Clare Short: Is the hon. Gentleman against the EEC?

Mr. Budgen: Certainly I am against some aspects of the EEC.

Ms. Short: That is disingenuous.

Mr. Budgen: It is not disingenuous. I am simply pointing out to those who believe that the idealism of Europe is best served by by the present structure of the EEC, that they should attempt to remove peripheral irritants such as the European convention on human rights.
I have learnt a good deal recently from distinguished Ministers in the Foreign Office about Foreign Office gobbledegook. We shall be told that we must avoid offending the international community and that we should remain an important part of the Christian and European heritage. Recently we have given notice of withdrawing from the International Labour Organisation. We could perfectly well withdraw from the European convention on human rights. We could perfectly well withdraw the right of individual petition or, better still, withdraw in total. I assert that it would have no effect on our relations with other European countries.
We have not done too badly in our respect for individual liberty. We do not necessarily have to feel particularly humble towards all other European nations when we compare our recognition of individual rights with countries where the authority of the State is paramount. If we were to withdraw, it would demonstrate that we still had some respect for and confidence in our Parliamentary institutions, and that we respected and had confidence in the innate good sense of the British people.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Unless speeches are short, I am afraid that several hon. Members will be disappointed at the end of the debate.

Mr. Max Madden: The debate has cast light on three matters. First, both Conservative and Labour Governments have taken bad decisions on immigration laws. Secondly, there is no compulsion or requirement on the British Government to adopt or seek to adopt the changes in immigration law that they are proposing tonight. Thirdly, there is a great feeling among people who are subject to immigration laws that the changes proposed by the Government will substantially intensify their feeling of grievance.
For the Government to secure sexual equality in the way that they are choosing to do has been aptly described as a policy of equality of misery. I believe—and the view is shared by many others — that the proposed changes that we are being asked to approve tonight represent a very bad decision, which will do substantial further damage to family unity and to race relations in the United Kingdom.
As wives and female fiancées will be required to apply for entry clearance permission, a considerable number of women will be refused permission to come here. They will, like husbands and male fiancés wishing to come here, be subject to the primary purpose test. That test, in my view and in that of many others who come into contact with it regularly, is a grotesque administrative barrier deliberately designed by the Government to keep out black and Asian men, and it will be extended to keep out black and Asian women.
We all know that trick questions are now used by entry clearance officers to give them reasons for refusing applicants permission to come here. It is monstrous that the onus of proof lies with the applicant. It is even more monstrous that applicants should be asked to prove that which is incapable of proof — that their marriage is genuine and that the primary purpose of their application is not settlement here.
The primary purpose test, now used to refuse the overwhelming majority of male fiancés, is wholly discredited. I am very sorry that the Government, despite all their claims to support natural justice, have chosen not to remove the primary purpose test but to extend it substantially.
It is important for the Government tonight, and for the Minister in reply to the debate, to say to what extent they intend by legislation to lessen or remove altogether the guarantee given by section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. If they fail to do that, they will leave great worry and uncertainty in the minds of many people who believe that that section of the Act guarantees their position.
Because of my concern for Pakistani nationals who are not British citizens, I sought advice from the Foreign Office about the protection that section 1(5) gives them. I was told:
I should perhaps add that Pakistani citizens are, however, in a different position in regard to Section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. The wife and children of a Pakistani citizen settled here on 1 January 1973 who became a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under the provisions of the Pakistan Act would have their rights to enter the United Kingdom unconditionally protected. But where such a man has not become a British citizen and therefore ceased to be a Commonwealth citizen his wife and children would not benefit from the Section. The current changes will not affect this position.


Therefore, I hope that the Minister who is to reply will clarify his intentions, because there are genuine and considerable reasons for anxiety.

Ms. Clare Short: There is one important way in which section 1(5) protects the Pakistani community. Boys born here of people who originated in Pakistan would not have to prove primary purpose if they sought to marry a woman from abroad.

Mr. Madden: I gladly accept my hon. Friend's helpful comment.
There must be concern about the much more stringent rules allowing the refusal of applications on the ground that it is believed that there is prospect of recourse to public funds.
It is also important for the Minister to give us information about how the rules are to be applied. If a man becomes unemployed during the months that he may be waiting for his wife or fiancée to be given permission to join him, will the application be refused?
Will the DHSS be asked to report when a person claims benefits? Will the Department of Employment be asked to tell the Home Office when a person registers as being available for employment? Will councils have to report when someone is given housing benefit?
How will all the information about someone's changing personal circumstances be monitored, reported and recorded? We know that the Home Office has become computerised in recent months, and that must be regarded as significant by many who are already worried about the way the police, the DHSS, the National Health Service and various public agencies seem to be an integral part of immigration control.
We must also be worried about the fact that the so-called Fowler reviews of social security have proposed residency tests. The Government suggest that some people will be able to apply for some benefits only if they have lived in this country for a certain number of years. All those proposals must be seen as part of a systematic pattern of restriction. The Minister must address the serious practical points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I asked whether the Foreign Office would welcome joint sponsorship applications and I was told by a senior official:
You also asked about joint sponsorship to help take account of the maintenance and accommodation requirements. The new Rules will require the couple to satisfy the Entry Clearance Officer, or the Secretary of State, that there will be adequate accommodation for themselves and their dependants without recourse to public funds in accommodation of their own or which they occupy themselves, and that they will be able to maintain themselves and their dependants adequately without recourse to public funds. What is at issue is the couple's ability to make adequate provision for themselves and their dependants. We would normally need to be satisfied that they could do so from their own resources. Our present thinking is that assistance such as a loan from a relative or friend would not necessarily meet the requirements, but I suspect we shall have to see how the Rules work out in practice.
That is not good enough. We are dealing with people who are seeking to marry or are married and are genuinely worried about how their applications will be processed and whether they will be approved. It is not good enough for a Government Department to say that we shall have to see how things work out. We need information and guidance now. Our constituents who are directly involved in these matters are asking how the rules will apply to them.
I should like the Minister who is to reply to clarify paragraph 99 of the new rules:
An application for variation of leave may also be refused if the person has failed to honour any declaration or undertaking given orally or in writing as to the intended duration and purpose of his stay".
Does that mean that if a visitor says at an interview that he or she wishes to stay for three months and subsequently varies the application either to remain longer or to stay as a student, such applications are more likely to be refused? The Minister must answer such questions.
I shall not dwell on the worries about children which have been voiced by a number of hon. Members. There is deep anxiety about the effect of the new rules on children.
There is also concern about how mothers whose husbands have applied to join them will be affected by the stringent conditions on support and maintenance. I can conceive of circumstances where women who are anxious to avoid being held to have had recourse to public funds and have great difficulty in maintaining a family while working will have to make arrangements for their children to be cared for by others or to be sent overseas pending consideration of the husband's application.
The proposals will divide more and more families, even though the Government have said, certainly before the general election, that they are committed to family unity. The proposals will mean that a number of men and women will have to apply for entry visas and wait months or, in some cases years, for interviews.
The Home Secretary made it abundantly clear that he had no intention of increasing the number of entry clearance officers. Therefore, the prospect is that the queues will get ever longer and will be used as an administrative means of preventing those with a right to entry from exercising that right. Even this mean and nasty Government ought to be deeply ashamed of the proposals, which will do serious damage to race relations and will cause great worry among many ethnic communities throughout the country.
The Government will come to regret these shabby proposals, which represent a major further restriction on an already tight and restricted set of immigration laws, rules and procedures. They are firm, but in the view of a growing number of people, they are grossly unfair.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: About 25 per cent. of the electorate in my area of Bedford come from abroad and, if they carefully examine these rules, they will not find them of grew: assistance.
In the future, a number of references may be made to the European Court of Human Rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has said that we could withdraw, but I think that it would be a great tragedy if we threatened to withdraw from that institution. The European Court could guarantee the rights that many hon. Members and the nation would support.
In dealing with immigrants, one is dealing not with statistics and charts but with humanity—individuals who are caught in a difficult position. Recently, a young lady told me that she had been trying for five years to get her fiancé into the United Kingdom but had not succeeded. She had been hit by severe rules. I accept that immigration rules are essential to protect the United Kingdom's, economy, but what will happen to that girl? Will she have to go to the end of the list and start again?
Under paragraph 41, the onus is on the applicant to prove his or her primary purpose in wishing to come to the United Kingdom. This primary purpose rule is being retained ferociously. Sub-paragraph (d) refers to
adequate maintenance and accommodation without recourse to public funds".
However, in arguing one's case on sub-paragraph (d), one can fall foul of sub-paragraph (a). I do not suggest that the entry clearance officers have to be lawyers, but the questions that they may ask are very sophisticated. A person may be asked, "Would you like to come to the United Kingdom because it is a desirable place?" Obviously, anyone would say yes, but that answer could be interpreted in such a way as to limit entry under the primary purpose rule.
The individual is inveigled into giving the appropriate answers. It is then a matter of interpreting them. A young man who is asked whether he has made any arrangements to work or to get accommodation in the United Kingdom may say that he has worked matters out. However, he is convicted by his own words under sub-paragraph (a). The Government should understand that. A clear statement of intention is needed to ensure that there is justice in the British courts.
I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who has been a great help to me in Bedford and has sympathetically listened to the cases that I put to him. One case involved Miss Kashmir Kaur Badham who was trying to get her fiancé, Mr. Sunil Kumar, into the United Kingdom, failed, appealed and won his appeal. One would have thought that he could then stay in the United Kingdom, but the Department appealed to the tribunal and won.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said:
we look carefully at every determination to see whether or not the adjudicator might have misdirected himself, either on a point of law or of fact, or could be considered to have been unreasonable in his conclusions. In our view, based on a previous Tribunal determination, the adjudicator in this case erred in attaching too great importance to his conclusion that the proposed marriage was a genuine one and not giving sufficient attention to the question of the primary purpose of the proposed marriage.
I had thought that we wanted to keep out the non-genuine cases and let the genuine ones through, but in this case the adjudicator fell between two stools. He spent his time primarily considering whether the marriage was genuine. I think that he discovered that it was, but fell foul of the Department's views on primary purpose.
These revised rules are being put to the nation for acceptance. Immigration rules must be firm. I am totally against anyone coming to the United Kingdom who tries to pull the wool over the eyes of the nation. I agree that we have great unemployment difficulties. Nevertheless, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to examine the rules and to ensure that they are genuine in their context.
It is perhaps a good feature of British justice that we can be taken to a European court of law that may suggest that our aims are wrong. On this occasion, to comply, we are making the rules a little more stringent as we go along. There is the primary purpose rule, which is a major hurdle, the original intention criterion, which is extremely disturbing, the stipulation that a couple must intend living together permanently—I have no objection to that—and the rule that the parties must have met. In the latter case,

the girl may have to spend money to go overseas to see the gentleman concerned, even though that is not the custom of their ethnic group.
In addition to all those requirements that must be satisfied, it is necessary for
adequate maintenance and accommodation without recourse to public funds
to be available before and after the marriage. Women do not receive the same salaries as men, and it may be difficult for them to succeed in convincing the entry clearance officers on that score. All this means that women will face an uphill task in proving their case. Their convictions may be genuine and they may want to live permanently with their fiancés like any other European, yet they may be defeated on grounds of purpose regardless of conviction. Is that right?

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) on his brave and informative speech. I shall watch with interest how he votes. He made a number of points along similar lines to my argument, which I shall develop further.
I understand the arguments about the European Court and about Britain ratifying the European convention, if only because the convention provides an important appeals system for dealing with the cases that generated this change in the immigration rules. We must accept that this is an extraordinarily slow process. British citizens should not have to rely on it to obtain justice in terms of non-sexist and non-racist immigration laws. The crux of this debate is the fact that the immigration rules have been found to be sexist.
Recently the Home Secretary was described in The Guardian as a secret liberal. That staggered many people who read the article. If he is a "secret liberal", his failure lies in giving in to the weaknesses of certain Conservative Members who put the racist lobby in the Tory party to the fore instead of the more civilised voices in the party who want, as I do, a Home Secretary who puts the concept of race relations high on his list of priorities, rather than these tough and inhuman immigration controls which run counter to good race relations and are perceived as such by the different minority communities.
Following press reports of the European Court's decision, a number of young women told me that they believed that it meant that the Government would change the rules to relieve them of the burden of the primary purpose rule when their fiancés had fallen foul of that rule. I said that the Government would not do that, and that their natural instinct was to make the system nastier and more difficult for people, not to operate it in a more humane and satisfactory way. Indeed, that is precisely what the Government have done.
It is incumbent on the Minister to give us adequate details of the proposed changes to section 1(5) of the 1971 legislation. Many hon. Members have requested that. It is staggering that the Home Secretary should announce that in principle he wishes to introduce changes, yet not to say what those changes will be. He has left us guessing, and all the natural worries and fears arise. The Minister may be able to announce those changes—if so, the Home Secretary should have announced them — but if he cannot, the House is entitled to know why the Home Secretary should run that rabbit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will know that today I introduced a Bill which will give citizens of Pakistan resident in the United Kingdom the same treatment as those from Commonwealth countries. Our immigration nationality laws should move in that direction, not in that pursued by the Government.
Many individuals are massively worried about the catch-all rule which means that immigrants do not have recourse to public funds, and the fact that the regulations include the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. What would happen if someone whose fiancée or spouse came to Britain and who in the first 12 months became homeless? How would they be affected by the new regulations? If someone brought in a two-year-old child and 18 years later that child lived on supplementary benefit, would the sponsor be responsible for repaying the supplementary benefit payments? If so, it means that that individual can never become a full citizen. He will be a marginal or partial citizen and will not enjoy the benefits of our community. That would be not merely ridiculous, but a complete disgrace.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West spoke forcefully about the extension of the primary purpose rule. As it stands, it is a grotesque invention. It is an insult and is offensive to many people. To talk of increasing its ambit to include people who are not at present caught by it is a disgrace.
Hon. Members who have dealings with people whose fiancées attempt to come through the entry clearance system and fall foul of it know the heartache that is caused, partly because of the protracted procedure when it is found that a person is in conflict with the rule. That person must face the adjudicators and the appeal tribunal, but ultimately the decision rests with the Minister. I do not envy him his role. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said that the Minister exercised his discretion admirably within the teens of poor laws. It is a moot point whether that is still admirable, but the Minister can defend himself. He has my sympathy in having to operate laws, which, almost by definition, try to exclude people on an arbitrary basis.
To say that 40 per cent. of applicants for entry clearance are refused under the primary purpose rule suggests that the rule is not a measure of the state of a marriage, but is used as a crude device to keep out people whose purpose is often genuine.
The representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office freely admitted to the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee of the Home Affairs Committee that applicants were asked hypothetical questions. The only reason for that is to catch them in the trap that we have been discussing tonight. It is not a test of the validity of a person's state of mind. That is almost unknowable. When an individual falls foul of the test, it becomes virtually impossible for him to prove that it is not the primary purpose of his marriage to enter the United Kingdom. For that reason many people, including many of my constituents, find the test objectionable.
Until today it was objectionable that women could come to my surgery and ask, "Why could my brother bring in a fiancée several years ago without any of this rigmarole, which is clearly designed to exclude people, on the grounds not of the genuineness of a marriage, but of racial origins, when I cannot?" I shall now have to tell

them that although their older brother did that several years ago, their younger brother will now fall foul of the same disgraceful trap which the Government introduced and which has caught them. The load in our constituency surgeries will double. Apart from the racism of the rule, many genuine human beings are caught up in a system, which they are powerless to change and which will mar their lives to a colossal extent. It is extraordinary to hear Conservative Members justifying the rule's place in our laws.
The impact of these regulations is extraordinary. The Home Secretary is responsible not merely for the administration of immigration rules, but for race relations. The ineptness and devastatingly bad impact of these regulations on race relations means that every hon. Member who has any interest in our society should vote against them tonight.

Mr. John Watts: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) explained with his customary eloquence that the problems which led the Government to introduce these changes in the rules may have been the consequence of a lack of effective control over immigration by an alien system of law. I hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announces the Government's decision on the future jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, the decision will reassert the pre-eminence of Parliament as the source of English law. I do not intend to trespass for long on that ground, which is clearly the preserve of hon. Members who are banisters. I shall refer to two other aspects of the changes in the rules—the accommodation and maintenance provisions, and the primary purpose rule.
I give a particularly warm welcome to the tightening of the requirements of accommodation and maintenance, especially to the inclusion of provision for housing and the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 within the definition of recourse to public funds. For a long time it has been a source of justifiable resentment that some newly arrived immigrants can seek financial support and accommodation at public expense. It is nothing short of a scandal that a person can fly thousands of miles without making adequate arrangements for accommodation in advance, and then present himself as homeless and claim that his homelessness is unintentional. I have had considerable experience of such scandalous instances during my years as leader of the council of the London borough of Hillingdon. The council, which has most of Heathrow airport within its boundaries, was forced to shoulder the burden of those arriving at the airport without accommodation and claiming assistance under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
My constituency of Slough is another area where there is considerable pressure on housing and where the operation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act exacerbates the present difficulties, which are largely the consequence of the considerable prosperity of the area. This prosperity makes it a magnet for people from all areas of the United Kingdom and from many parts of the world. Being cognisant of the problems, in my election address of two years ago I asserted the right of British citizens to live in this country with their families. I advocated much more stringent conditions on the provision of adequate accommodation for dependants. I contended that there


should be adequate means of support without recourse to public funds. I am especially pleased that these matters feature in the rule changes that are before us.
I am pleased also that the primary purpose rule has been retained and that so-called sexual discrimination has been overcome by extending the rule to female fiancées. Reference has been made to the down side of the primary purpose rule, which sometimes creates difficulties for those who are wishing genuinely to enter into a marriage and who are not using marriage as a means of circumventing control. These people find themselves caught by the operation of the rule. I accept that there are hard cases but instances have come to my notice in my constituency in which I have concluded that a wrong decision was made on the primary purpose rule. I have had some extensive correspondence — fairly strong on occasions — with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. There are instances when even after his careful and sympathetic consideration I could not be convinced that the decision that was reached was the right one.

Mr. Lawler: My hon. Friend has paid tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

Mr. Lawler: I do not wish to detract from the tribute which my hon. Friend paid. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to take this opportunity to pay a great and sincere tribute to the staff of my hon. and learned Friend's private office, which goes largely unrecognised. Those of us who have dealings with his staff have great regard for their commitment to their work. If the Government were proposing to increase their salaries by 17 per cent., I am sure that no one would have any hesitation in supporting the proposal.

Mr. Watts: I am willing in general terms to join my hon. Friend in that tribute. I am not sure about the last part of his suggestion.
I acknowledge that there are hard cases where the primary purpose rule seems to impinge unfairly. I suggest that it is regrettable but inevitable that in the operation of any rule or regulation anomalies will arise. The existence of hard cases does not necessarily undermine the principles on which the rule is based and the purposes which it is there to serve.
I shall present the other side of the coin and suggest some of the benefits that can flow from the operation of the primary purpose rule. I shall draw from my constituency experience. Over the past 12 months, despite the stringent requirements of the rule, it is clear that abuses continue. In the past 12 months, four abandoned wives have sought my assistance. They have complained that their husbands, whom they brought into the country as finances, were prepared to stay with them only long enough to obtain their own permanent leave to remain here. At the end of two years, when there was no further risk that they could be required to leave the country, they either kicked their wives out or walked out on their wives. Four abandoned wives have asked me whether I can arrange for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office to remove their husbands, which, of course, cannot be done.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If that has been the effect of the primary purpose rule in the hon. Gentleman's experience, how will it help to retain the rule?

Mr. Watts: In spite of the stringent requirements of the rule, anomalies and abuses still arise. That suggests to me that there is a need to retain the rule. If it were to be removed, the incidence of abuse would be much greater. There is a real sense in which the effective operation of the rule can provide protection for girls from being drawn into marriage merely to circumvent immigration control. In another case it was clear to me that the girl living in Britain had deliberately given the wrong answer when interviewed about the intentions of her fiancé as a means of escape from an arranged marriage into which she did not wish to enter. There again, the operation of the primary purpose rule served as a protection for a girl, a British citizen, who would otherwise have found herself being drawn into a marriage which she did not wish to contract.

Mr. Dicks: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) has paid tribute to the staff of the private office of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. Immigration officers have had to suffer abuse from Labour Members and I pay tribute to the work of the officers. They have a delicate and difficult job in determining the honesty and integrity of those who enter the country. It should be put on record that the officers do a fantastic job. I accept that they are paid a reasonable salary, but most of their judgments are right.

Mr. Watts: We cannot spend too much of the time that remains for the debate in paying tributes to Ministers and their officials. My hon. Friend has made his point well.
We must consider the primary purpose rule objectively. It must be recognised that in some instances it works unfairly against genuine applicants. Ministers are sometimes able to help our constituents and to substitute a fairer decision. We must consider also the protection that the rule offers against the abuse of marriage as a means of circumventing our necessary immigration control. It is entirely right that we should continue to seek to prevent that abuse. Our fair and firm immigration control is of prime importance in maintaining good community relations, especially in constituencies with large ethnic communities, such as Slough, where onefifth or more of the electorate are from the New Commonwealth.

Ms. Clare Short: The changes in rule that we are debating have been introduced to comply with a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. In fact, the Government are failing to comply with the court's ruling and are showing quite serious disrespect for the convention. The court found Britain guilty of sex discrimination in its immigration rules because men and women were treated differently in their rights to marriage and to live in the United Kingdom. The Government claim to be putting right the discrimination but they are doing so in the meanest possible way by, in future, treating men as badly as women. In practice, that will not be the case.
The Government have made one minor and inescapable concession, which is that women who are settled in Britain but not citizens will be free to apply to bring their foreign husbands to join them. But the Government have the primary purpose rule up their sleeve and will be able to ensure that few women will be able to avail themselves of


that opportunity. The levelling down which applies to men is that in future their fiancées will have to apply for entry certificates.
The current waiting time in the Indian subcontinent is 12 months, and the Home Secretary has made it clear that the Government have no intention of putting in extra entry certificate officers. That is a deliberate use of queueing and delay to restrict the theoretical legal right that people have. A leak to The Guardian a short time ago said that the Government were deliberately using long queues as a form of immigration control, and here we have another example.
Another test is that the couple should have met, and that currently applies to women. That is unobjectionable and desirable. In the evolving reshaping of the custom of arranged marriages in the Asian community, it is desirable that the young couple should have met each other before deciding to marry. The primary purpose rule is being extended to men seeking to bring their fiancées from abroad. Like so many other Members who have spoken, I agree that the primary purpose rule is the objectionable feature of the Government's immigration policy and it is operating in a way which discriminates crudely but effectively' against black people and poor people.
What is being done in our name under the primary purpose rule is shameful. In future, the 12 months condition will apply to men and their wives will not be able to give them permanent right to remain unless the couple are together 12 months after their marriage. That rule is acceptable in relation to husbands coming to join women, because there are a few cases of abuse; the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) tried to draw attention to that. Such arguments in relation to immigration can get fantastically distorted because in any community and in all cultures and traditions some marriages fail. The 12 months condition is a protection and it is not highly undesirable that it should be applied to men.
Another tranche of the new provisions will mean that both men and women will be significantly worse off than they have been hitherto. My first objection is the extension of the meaning of the phrase "resort to public funds". The inclusion of housing benefit as a recourse to public funds will apply to many families working and struggling in low-paid occupations. The Government are keen on lowering wages in low-paid jobs through the process of privatisation and getting rid of the wages councils. As I recall, in Birmingham in 1979 about 11 per cent. of families in council houses were getting rent and rate rebates. Now the number of council house tenants getting housing benefit in Birmingham is more than 70 per cent.
That means two things — a massive increase in unemployment, which affects all communities in Birmingham, including the Asian community, and a massive increase in rent levels, which the Government have deliberately pushed up. Large numbers of Asian families who are receiving housing benefit are hardworking citizens and they will lose entitlement because of this extension of the definition of what recourse to public funds means.
The Government have said that housing under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act will be seen as a recourse to public funds. That is despite a decision by one of the Government's adjudicators in 1982 in the case of Bakare, which established that
housing under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act constituted a 'facility' to which those who have entered this country

conditionally on lack of recourse to public funds are entitled. The Adjudicator (Professor Jackson, now Chief Adjudication Officer) argued that public housing does not enjoy a sufficient degree of public subsidy to constitute `recourse to public funds'. If an immigrant were to be denied access to public housing on grounds of public subsidy, logically they must also be denied the enjoyment of services such as public transport or refuse disposal—all of which the person concerned will themselves pay for through their rent and rates. Yet the Home Secretary would not dream of including such services under the definition of 'recourse to public funds'".
Perhaps there are some Conservative Members who wish to deny immigrants the right to have their bins emptied and would look upon that as a recourse to public funds.
The Government are reversing a decision which went against them in the courts. I notice that the Minister did not respond to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) when he said that, under the new ruling on accommodation, people will not be entitled to live with their families. As he and any of those who have substantial Asian communities will know, in their strong extended families it is a tradition that a young couple will live in the home with the family until they have one or two children of their own, at which time the family will club together to buy them a house.
I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that there is nothing in the new wording on the provision of accommodation which says that accommodation that they own themselves or which they occupy would rule out such a couple living with their parents in the early years of their marriage.
A further extension of the public fund ruling relates to family income supplement. As I have said, the Government are abolishing the wages councils and doing everything to exert a downward pressure on the wage levels of low-paid workers. Asian people will be significantly affected by this, because they have come to work in Britain in low-paid jobs. If such families claim the family income supplement to which they are entitled alongside their neighbours, they may lose all sorts of rights to live in the country under the extension of the public funds provision. That implies that over time there will develop a sub-class of people who will not feel entitled to claim housing benefit or family income supplement. That is an undesirable development that has not previously been seen in Britain. When people settled here, they had absolutely equal rights to all benefits.
The Minister should tell us how long this will go on. If someone comes here as an 18-year-old for marriage, has a good job and works for 20 years and then there is an accident in the family or he loses his job, and perhaps at the time when he got settlement he signed an undertaking that he would not have recourse to public funds, is the Minister suggesting that such insecurity should continue for such a long time? For how long is the Minister going to make this requirement stick? I hope that the Minister will give us a clear answer on that.
This levelling down of the rights of men and women who seek to marry someone from abroad will fail to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. That is because section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 states that nothing in the rules made under the Act can make it more difficult for the wives and children of men settled before 1 January 1973 to come into the country to join their husbands.
That means that all the palaver and levelling down, and all the hurt that will flow from these changes in the rules, will not comply with the judgment and 70 or 80 per cent.


of the men of marriageable age living in Britain are covered by that undertaking. Therefore, cases will go back immediately to the European Court of Human Rights, which will find that the Government have failed to comply with the judgment because the bulk of men are treated differently from women in their right to marry a foreigner.
It is not possible that the Government have not been given legal advice that this whole process is questionable and that they are failing to comply with the judgment. The Home Secretary told us that he intends to go even further in the meanness and nastiness to which the Government are willing to resort. I hope that the Minister will clarify the remark that the Government intend to legislate to repeal section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. I hope that he will make it clear what the Government intend and whether the intention is to breach that undertaking, given by successive Home Secretaries and Ministers of State ever since the passage of the 1971 Act.
The Government have not complied with the judgment. There will still be the crude sex discrimination between men and women. They have simply levelled down the rights of both men and women. Further, they have not complied with the judgment, in that they have provided no remedy for those who are not getting their full rights under the European convention. Again, I think that that is deliberate. The appropriate part of the convention could have been incorporated in the immigration rules, but then people could have obtained justice fairly quickly. The Government know quite cynically that it will take four or five years for anyone to bring a case before the European Court, so that these unacceptable rules which do not comply with the convention or with the ruling of the court will see them through until the next general election.
The primary purpose of the rule has been referred to by a number of hon. Members. However, a number of Government supporters who do not have substantial Asian communities in their constituencies do not understand what is at stake. We are talking not about a rule which excludes marriages of convenience or bogus marriages but about a rule which the Minister has admitted again and again excludes people who are genuinely married, have children and intend to live together for the rest of their lives.
The rule requires what is outrageous and unprovable. A man coming to join a woman—in future it will apply to some women as well — has to prove to the immigration officer that it is not the primary purpose of his marriage to come and live in the United Kingdom. It is assumed that it must be his primary purpose, and he has to prove that it is not. But that is almost incapable of proof. The line of questioning by our entry certificate officers is roughly as follows: "When did you first get your passport? Do you have relatives who live in the United Kingdom? Are they having a reasonable life in the United Kingdom? Do you hope to have a reasonable life in the United Kingdom?"
What young man planning to marry and to begin his married life will say in any country at any time that he expects his life to be very bad? Everyone, everywhere, hopes to have a better life in the future. It is in the nature of the arrangement that young men happy to come and live and work in the United Kingdom agree to marry young women already living here. Those young men, of course, say, for example, that they have relatives in the United

Kingdom, that some of them are doing well and that they themselves hope to do well, and they are then refused admission because it is said that their primary purpose is to come and live in the United Kingdom. The trick questions put to them are disreputable and disgraceful.
In recent months, I have become aware of even worse decisions. I have seen a decision where the couple were well established and it was not at all clear that they offended the primary purpose rule. There is a hardening of attitudes, and the extension of the rule to even more young couples will bring all of us into disrepute.
The Government and their supporters say repeatedly that an awful lot of people in Britain do not want immigrants and have to be appeased. They belittle Britain's black community and decent people who know that immigration for work is over but do not require that the relatives of black people who came here to work should be treated with such disrespect when they come to visit, to look after elderly parents or to marry. It is time that the Government had the guts to give a dignified lead to public opinion rather than seek to appease those low-level attitudes.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House that the replies should begin at 10 minutes past 9. That being so, my points will have to be made briefly.
I agree with the last part of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said about the primary rule, and I shall deal with that in the course of my brief remarks.
It is obviously right that this Government or any Government should pursue an immigration policy which is both firm and effective, but at the same time it is essential that the immigration policy thus pursued does not constitute an undue infringement on the rights of individuals. If I have to choose between a firm immigration policy and a policy which does not constitute an undue infringement of the rights of individuals, I prefer the latter to the former. I am always in favour of human rights when I have to contrast them with the apparatus of state control. Therefore, I approach the rules, revised as they are, with a degree of scepticism.
I wish to make three brief points only about the rules. First, I believe that the onus is wrong. I do not believe that the burden of satisfying the entrance clearance officer that marriage is not the primary purpose for admission to the United Kingdom should be upon the applicant. That burden, it seems to me, is wrong. I think that the burden should be the other way round. Once the entrance clearance officer has been satisfied that the parties actually intend to live together permanently, then the certificate should be issued, unless the entrance clearance officer is satisfied that the thing is a fraud, if I may put it loosely.
The reason that I come to that view is essentially twofold. First, I am concerned with principles of natural justice. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, who said that it is very difficult to prove a negative. So long as the burden in the negative form rests as it is, the consequence of an error necessarily causes more injustice than would be caused if the burden was the other way round.
I have another three minutes only, and I wish to make two other points. Even if it be right to extend the rather tighter provisions to what are engaged marriages but not


marriages, I do not believe that it is right to extend the same rules to marriages themselves, as is contemplated by paragraph 46 of the new rules. Once the parties have entered into a marriage, they have changed their personal status. Although I am perfectly prepared to believe that some people will do that for an improper purpose—to enter the United Kingdom not intending really to be married—I think that, in the nature of things, that must be a very rare occurrence. Applying the test which I always apply—how do I rate personal liberty as against the convenience of the state?—I always prefer personal liberty. That being so, I doubt the wisdom or the necessity of extending these new and rather tighter rules to marriages as opposed to engagements.
My last point is not one which will commend itself to the hon. Member for Ladywood. It relates to whether the parties to a marriage have met. Once the entry clearance officer is satisfied that the parties to a marriage intend to live together permanently, it matters not at all whether the parties to the marriage have met. I personally would not have wanted to marry in those circumstances, but that is to impose my own moral standards and my own qualitative judgment upon other peoples' values and other peoples' judgments, and I do not see why we should impose our own cultural values upon another community operating a different set of cultural values.
I quite see why we should not allow arranged marriages to be fraudulent, in the sense that we should not allow them to be the method of getting in but, once people are intent on living together, and have so satisfied the entrance clearance officer, I do not give two hoots whether they have met or not. That seems to me to be a matter of culture. Perhaps I do not agree with it, but then who am I to impose my concept of culture upon them?
Having said these things, I personally believe that the rules go further than need be, and I very much hope that the Government will reconsider them.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The changes in the immigration rules are a consequence of what the Government and the country must have seen as a major defeat for the Government's immigration policies at the hands of the European Court of Human Rights. The Home Secretary's speech was complacent and he did the House a disservice by not trying to justify some of the significant new provisions embraced by the rules. If the Home Secretary had listened to the debate for part of the afternoon, he would have known that we lacked an explanation of or justification for some of the points in the new rules.
I fully understand how embarrassing all this must be for the Government. It is an embarrassment that other people predicted as the European Court made its decision. Some Conservative Back Benchers have suggested that the way out of the dilemma is to move the goal posts — to remove the right of personal appeal to the European Commission of Human Rights. The alliance, by contrast, decided that the goal posts ought to be made of firm and immovable concrete.
The Government's response has not been to remove the restrictions on women but to decrease the rights of men. When we consider what happened in today's debate we shall realise that it would have been much better if the Home Secretary had brought forward the immigration rules in draft form so that we could have influenced some

of the details, if not the principles. I believe that the Home Secretary will agree that several points of detail have emerged which he will find it difficult to justify when he implements the rules.
Time and again, the Government and some Conservative Back Benchers imply that Labour party policy is quite different from what it is. We are not in favour, and never have been, of unrestricted entry. We have said consistently that our aim in government will be to remove the discrimination on sexual and racial grounds which exists in many aspects of our immigration rules and in the Immigration Act 1971. That is not unrestricted entry, but giving justice to the practices under which we allow people to come to Britain.
Many of us welcome the one improvement embodied in the rules—the reluctant concession which means that it will no longer be necessary for women living here to be citizens if they are to be joined by their husbands. They will simply have to be settled here. When I asked the Minister of State about the consequence of the changes in the rules, he suggested that there would be an increase in men from the Indian subcontinent of 600, and an increase of men from other parts of the world of 1,500, making a total of 2,100. He then said that other changes would lead to a reduction in numbers, but he was unable to say how many.
One of our anxieties is to know how the other provisions will be implemented, not because we are worried about the arithmetic of the changes but because we are worried about the principles. We know that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary are concerned about the arithmetic resulting from the changes that they are introducing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and others satisfactorily demolished the primary purpose rule. It is clear that that rule is not concerned with the genuineness of the marriage. A marriage may be absolutely genuine but the primary purpose rule will still prevent the partners from getting together and living in Britain. In a short but effective speech, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned the burden of proof and those ominous words, "unless the Secretary of State is satisfied" which lay down the need for people to prove something which they are unable to prove. Nobody would be able to prove it. I do not believe that the Home Secretary or the Minister could do it.

Mr. Brittan: Sixty per cent. do.

Mr. Dubs: The Home Secretary may talk about 60 per cent., but the fact that some people manage to persuade officials does not mean that the proposition is provable. Perhaps officials accept particular facts about two people, but I contend that the proposition is not provable.
In 1982, before the onus of proof combined with the primary purpose applied in the way that it does today, 82 per cent. of men refused entry who wished to join wives or women for the purpose of marriage were turned down for objective reasons such as whether the bride or wife was a British citizen or whether the partners to a marriage had met previously. The figure for the latest year for refusals of men wanting to come to Britain for the same purpose was 87 per cent. on subjective grounds, mainly concerning the motives of marriage.
The primary purpose rule is now the major barrier to men coming to this country to join their wives or fiancées.


We have turned the officials concerned with these procedures into people doing something for which they have had no training or experience—they must look into the motives of marriage. No hon. Member would like his or her marriage to be subjected to that sort of scrutiny by bureaucrats who have had no training for that function.
The provision regarding recourse to public funds is an area on which the Home Secretary, out of courtesy to the House, could have said a little more. The definition of public funds is clearly stated and wide-ranging and includes supplementary benefit, housing benefit, family income supplement and housing under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. As I understand it, the system will be that for the first 12 months, until conditions have been removed, anybody receiving public funds will be in breach of the immigration rules and liable to removal. Thereafter, once the conditions have been removed — and this is to apply in perpetuity — the sponsor of that person would have to reimburse the Exchequer for any supplementary benefit that had been claimed and received by the person he was sponsoring. The onus of proof in the whole arrangement is either with the entry certificate officer or, for people already in this country, with the Secretary of State.
A number of major criticisms apply to those provisions. The first is the method by which people will be able to demonstrate to officials that they will not have to have recourse to public funds. The experience of immigration procedures generally, as evidenced by the report of the Commission for Racial Equality and from other sources, suggests that that process of scrutiny and interrogation is liable to be arbitrary and a means whereby people seeking to come into this country can be prevented from doing so. It would be difficult for Parliament or an individual Member of Parliament to find a means of querying the procedures under which someone is refused entry under that heading.
The second major criticism is the Catch 22 provision, which has already been mentioned by one or two of my hon. Friends. If a man is seeking to enter this country, he will either have a job already lined up—in which case he is caught by the primary purpose rule because people will say that he is coming here merely for employment purposes—or, if he does not have a job, he is liable to be a burden on public funds and will be prevented from entering the country. For the life of me I find it difficult to see how people can avoid that Catch 22 problem unless the Minister issues guidelines to prevent that happening. I hope that he will comment on that when he replies to the debate.
My third criticism is that the recourse to public funds provision will last for ever. It seems that there will never be a time in the life of the individual when he or she will not be subject to that provision. Indeed, sponsors may become unemployed or even pensioners, yet the burden will still hold good. People who are legitimately and legally here will be denied rights that exist for their fellow citizens. That is extraordinary and unacceptable.
My fourth major criticism concerns the invidious position in which local authorities will be placed, and I have a constituency case which exemplifies the point. If it is necessary for an individual to have more housing

accommodation than he or she now has—if the person in question is to be joined by his or her spouse—that person is again in a Catch 22 situation.
If more accommodation is needed, the local authority will not provide it until the other members of the family have arrived in the country. On the other hand, the Home Office will say, "Until that accommodation is available, there is no evidence that the people will not be a public burden because housing is not there for them."
Should the Government be in doubt about that, I cite the case to which I referred in my constituency. A man wishes to be joined by his children and needs more accommodation. The local authority has said that that accommodation will not be forthcoming until the children have arrived. The Home Office has said that the children will not be allowed in until the accommodation is available.
My fifth criticism is of the processes by which these matters will be checked. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradfor, West (Mr. Madden) raised this issue. By what process will the Home Office be satisfied that an individual is not having recourse to one of the public funds to which I referred? Will there be a procedure by which automatically the DHSS, local authorities and others will have to refer claims to the Home Office to check the immigration status of any individual?
Alternatively, may we have an undertaking that that will not happen? Otherwise many anxieties will be caused as a result of the new procedures. People will feel that additional efforts will be made by, in particular, the DHSS and local authorities, as it were, to report people because there are doubts about their immigration status.
My sixth criticism is about the wide-ranging nature of the provisions. So wide are they that they could affect the children of any Member of this House. If they wished to marry and be joined by their spouses in this country, the provisions will apply to them.
The provisions applying to housing benefit and homelessness give rise for concern. An average owner-occupier who is reasonably affluent may still be entitled to a rate rebate under the housing benefit provisions. But even those provisions will be denied to certain people under the immigration rules, if they prove to be enforceable.
We are speaking of present rates of income of up to £140 a week gross for a family with, say, four children. Such a family would be entitled to rate rebate. To qualify for rent rebate, one's earnings need be only £2 or £3 short of that. Thus, many people are entitled to housing benefit. Indeed, about 7 million people are entitled to housing benefit of one sort or another, though under the new immigration rules such benefit will be denied to those coming here.
We must consider, in relation to the provisions on homelessness, what will happen if there is a marital breakdown and one partner becomes homeless and needs to be accommodated by the local authority. Will that immediately put that person in breach of the immigration rules? The Minister will doubtless answer yes, if the person has not been here for a year, but suppose that happens after that period. Will local authorities have to continue to make checks on passports?
I am asking the Minister for a commitment on two specific matters. First, can he define the circumstances in which an undertaking will be required to provide support and accommodation for spouses? How will that


undertaking be requested and how will people have to meet the immigration rules requirements? Secondly, in what circumstances will families be refused indefinite leave after completing a stay of months here? What will they have to prove for the restrictions on their stay to be lifted?
The provisions for children seem to be ill thought out and a bit of a mess. As I interpret the rules, children allowed to come here who reach the age of 18 within 12 months of their arrival will technically be ineligible to stay. Perhaps that is not the intention and I hope that common sense will intervene, but there is nothing in the rules which says that such children have the right to stay. I doubt whether that is the intention. I think that the rules have been sloppily drafted.
What of the young person who comes here and is married at the age of 16 or 18? Technically that young person would not be allowed to remain here. That is one interpretation of the rules. I ask the Minister to clarify the intention.
Paragraph 98 of the new rules causes me anxiety. It states:
A person's leave may be curtailed or an application for variation of leave refused if false representations have been made"—
this is the key point—
or material facts not disclosed".
That possibility was covered in a legal judgment on 10 February 1983 in the House of Lords case of Khawaya and Khera when Lord Scarman said:
To allow officers to rely on an entrant honouring a duty of positive candour, by which is meant a duty to volunteer relevant information, would seem perhaps a disingenuous approach to the administration of control. Some might think it conducive to slack rather than to sensitive administration. The Immigration Act does impose a duty not to deceive the immigration officer. It makes no express provision for any higher or more comprehensive duty. Accordingly I reject the view that there is a duty of positive candour imposed by the immigration laws and that mere nondisclosure by an entrant of material facts in the absence of fraud is a breach of the immigration laws".
That was a clear decision by Lord Scarman in the House of Lords.
Paragraph 98 of the new rules attempts to reverse or undermine that House of Lords' judgment. At the least we should have more specific proposals and a more specific basis for debate. We should not slip in the provision in one of the immigration rules, which are not the consequence of the European Court decision but cover new ground.
It is shabby and reprehensible that the Home Office should seek to slip in the provision. The Home Secretary did not mention it. The provision means that if people do not disclose something, even if they have no reason to think that it is of interest to the immigration officials, they are liable to be thrown our for being in breach of that paragraph of the rules. Is that a fair and just way to approach immigration?
Those of us who are concerned with immigration cases many times a week know that the Home Office turns down an individual if it can suggest that some deception has taken place—there are other reasons, but when all else fails, that is the one. The Home Office definition of deception is not the normal English dictionary definition. If it can find a slight discrepancy in the story, the Home Office says that a person has been deceiving and therefore cannot come to the country.
The words:
or material facts not disclosed

are an open door for the Home Office to turn down virtually anybody if it can find some fact that the individual did not know that he should reveal at some point in the interview. This is not the way that the country and the House should approach matters as serious as immigration.
The Home Secretary made one point that caused many of us a great deal of surprise. The Home Secretary knew that he would be accused of not complying fully with the European Court of Human Rights decision because sex discrimination still remains in the provisions regarding people who came here before 1 January 1973. Many of us have been puzzling about the Home Secretary's contentions. He seemed to suggest that he would introduce legislation that would change the commitment that has been entered into for people who were here before that date.
It is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the promises and commitments entered into by successive Governments and Ministers, and which I heard the Home Secretary reiterate in a speech to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service conference in Manchester, are to be reneged on. That is what the Home Secretary appeared to be hinting, but if he wishes to deny it, he has access to the Floor of the House. If that is what the Home Secretary is saying, that is significant. It is a sorry day when a Minister as senior as the Home Secretary comes along and says, "Forget what I said in Manchester a few months ago and what successive British Governments have said because we shall tear up our promises and do something different." The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just shaken his head, but why does he not stand up and deny the charge? Why does he not say that he is not going to renege on the commitment into which he entered? He knows that he made the hint, and we heard him make it. His silence can be taken to mean only that he will tear up the commitments that he has made.
I end with my overall conclusions about this sorry mess. These provisions give more power to the bureaucrats and administrators and take away power from Parliament and the courts. Some weeks ago, we had revealed to us the secret Home Office guidelines which set out the use of long queues and administrative procedures as a way to control the numbers coming in in any one year. Our suspicion is that the further provisions in these amended rules will add to the opportunity that the Home Office has for controlling the numbers coming in and denying entry to those who, up till now, will have had the right to come in. The Home Secretary is replacing the objective test by a subjective test. He is giving more rights to bureaucrats at the expense of the individual. He is putting forward shabby and petty proposals, which will still be seen as racially discriminatory by many people.
The trouble with these procedures and proposals is that they are giving a signal to the people of this country as to the type of society that the Home Secretary wants to see. It is one where the values and rights of the individual are given second place to the Government's shabby wishes to keep down the numbers at all costs. It is a sad day for the House that we have these proposals here. I hope that the House will throw them out unceremoniously because we need a better way to approach immigration.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr.


Dubs) has a proper sense of proportion. He was not wildly enthusiastic about the rule changes, but his dislike of them was not sufficiently great to get him out of bed and to the Table Office before the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). The result was that this incompetent Opposition did not even get a prayer against the rules on to the Order Paper. Although, therefore, I was not expecting congratulations from the Opposition for our having responded so quickly to the judgment of the court, I expected no more than a mild rebuke from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The whole thing would obviously be "odious," because it always is, but beyond that I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's response would be as generous as that which he gave yesterday when we discussed telephone tapping. I was wrong. We were subjected to a tirade of abuse. For doing what? For doing precisely what the court required—making the rules for the admission of husbands the same as those for the admission of wives.
The Opposition are no doubt furious at our not having done what they expected. They thought that we were going to achieve equality by taking away from settled men the right to bring in their wives. They thought that they would be able to play "uproar", but they are now like a baby who has had its rattle stolen from it. They are as cross as two sticks because they cannot play, as they had hoped, the game of "uproar".
The Opposition express indignation at our having extended primary purpose to women, but the logic of their argument is that if we are to keep primary purpose at all we must, in view of the judgment, apply it to both sexes. We should have been very foolish if we had tried to achieve equality by doing away with primary purpose for men. To do so would have been a complete betrayal of our commitment to stop the abuse of marriage for immigration purposes.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) said about this matter. I know how difficult some of these cases can be for constituency Members. I noted also what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) had to say about it. The rules require the applicant in every other respect to satisfy the entry clearance officer or the immigration officer of his entitlement. There cannot therefore be anything wrong in principle in requiring the applicant who is an intending spouse, or who is a spouse, to prove his entitlement. I cannot therefore agree with the criticisms. I do not agree that the test is unfair and I do not believe that unreasonable questions are asked by the entry clearance officers. Nobody who does my job for long can fail to realise that the primary purpose test can be a protection for young women.
A great deal has been said about the European Court. It is not loved by all. It is certainly not loved by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell); nor is it loved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). Few people say that we should abrogate the convention. We provided much of the inspiration that underlies it, and as a country we have been a champion of human rights.

Mr. Budgen: During my hon. and learned Friend's period in politics, can he say how many people have asked him to discuss the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Waddington: Not very many, but a good many have discussed it tonight.
I have no doubt whatever that there are many in this House who say that, so bizarre and so far from the intentions of the original signatories have been some recent judgments of the court, that we should either cease to recognise its jurisdiction or take the step of not renewing the right of individual petition. This is not the time to enter into that debate, which could go on for a long time.

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I may be able to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he will wait a moment.
The Government are currently considering whether to renew the right of individual petition under article 25 and, if so, for what period, and will announce their decision in good time before the expiry date. It must be before the end of this year.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) seems to have a very suspicious mind. I remind him that we extended the right of individual petition in 1981, not for two years, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Gorton, but for five years.
Several hon. Members have mentioned incorporation. That question raises complex constitutional issues. It is obvious from our debate that opinions are divided. I inferred from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham that he was very much in favour. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was obviously very much against. Many think that it could lead to considerable difficulties in the relationship between Parliament and our courts. Certainly the Government have no plans for incorporation.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the right hon. Member for Gorton had much to say about article 13. We do not accept that lack of incorporation puts us in automatic and continuing breach of the convention. The decision in the present case means no more than that, as there was a breach of substantive provision, there was also a breach of article 13 because we had not incorporated. If there had not been a breach of a substantive provision, there would not have been a breach of article 13. When we remedy the breach of the substantive article, we shall no longer be in breach of article 13.
I am very surprised that the right hon. Member for Gorton should be advancing the argument that we are in automatic and continuing breach of article 13 as long as we do not incorporate the convention, because I do not remember that it was ever stated to be the policy of the Labour Government that they should incorporate the convention. That is well known to all of us.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that article 13 provides that everyone whose rights and freedoms are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority. Will he now tell us which national authority in the United Kingdom gives that effective remedy to ensure that there is no breach of article 13?

Mr. Waddington: I will help the hon. and learned Gentleman to this extent. It seems to me that the lawyers have two views about the matter. I am told that the hon. and learned Gentleman should look at the case of Silver,


which seemed to suggest that there was no automatic and continuing breach of article 13 if a member state did not incorporate the convention.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) seemed to be suggesting that there should be a reference in the rules to the European convention, presumably in the same way as there is a reference to the United Nation convention on refugees. That would present immigration officers with an impossible task. The convention is couched in the most general terms. How on earth an immigration officer would be able to decide, at the point of entry, whether in a particular case there would be an infringement of article 8, I do not know.
Many wild statements have been made this afternoon about the effect of the judgment. First, the court acknowledged that a state has the right to control the entry of non-nationals into its territory. Secondly, the court acknowledged that there is no general obligation on a state to accept a non-national for settlement. Thirdly, there is nothing in the court judgment that calls in question the primary purpose rule.

Ms. Clare Short: But it was not before the court.

Mr. Waddington: Exactly. I remind the hon. Member for Ladywood, who may be looking for crumbs of comfort in other parts of the discussion, that the nearest that the court came to the subject was to say that the "must have met" requirement was not racially discriminatory and that the aim of the 1980 rules, which included primary purpose—protection of the labour market—was legitimate. To the extent that the court touched on the marriage tests, it said that they were legitimate to protect the labour market.
The court said that if there are rules restricting the rights of women to bring in husbands for settlement, the same rules must apply to men wanting to bring in wives, unless there are very weighty reasons for the distinction.

Mr. Dubs: Oh!

Mr. Waddington: I am using the words in the judgment. The judgment also says that sexual discrimination is not always wrong. According to the court, it is wrong unless there is an objective and reasonable justification or very weighty reasons for it.
There has been some discussion of secton 1(5) of the 1971 Act. Its effect is that we cannot apply the marriage tests to women seeking to join Commonwealth citizens settled before 1 January 1973. That is because of our domestic law. Our rules must correspond with that.
However, we do not believe that, given the intention stated by the Home Secretary to introduce legislation to put an end to the sexually discriminatory features of the provision, the court's judgment requires us in the present rules to exempt from the primary purpose test men joining women settled before 1 January 1973. The provision in the Act is, of course, transitional in character and effect. We shall legislate in due course.
Many questions were raised about the maintenance and accommodation requirement and some misconceptions may have arisen as a result of hon. Members failing to realise that the test will bite principally before entry. It involves an assessment at that time of the prospects of those seeking entry.
Paragraph 125 of the rules, which deals with the case of a person who has entered and aims to stay after the probationary period, does not require the passing of the

maintenance and accommodation test at that point, although there is the overall provision in paragraph 98, which is an amended version of the old paragraph 97.
We must start by looking at the principal problem, which is how the rule will be applied before entry. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr. Watts) and for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that it is surely not unreasonable to expect people who want to bring a spouse into this country, rather than live with the spouse abroad, to show that the family unit will be able to look after itself and not be a burden on the state.
I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North said, but there has long been a maintenance and accommodation test in the rules and I do not believe that many who have studied the situation will doubt the need for it. I believe that it needs to be strengthened.
I have looked recently at the situation in Tower Hamlets. Men living in single persons' accommodation marry women overseas, bring them to this country and expect the council to rehouse them. The council cannot, and the couple then have to be put up in hotels. In April 1985, 418 families — virtually all with one parent an immigrant—were being maintained in bed and breakfast accommodation in Tower Hamlets at an annual cost of £5·5 million. I do not think that any sensible person would fail to realise that there is a real problem.
The test, which previously applied only to women joining men, will now be applied also when men are joining women; but what will be looked at is the ability of the couple — the new family unit — to maintain themselves "adequately". In answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), let me say that it is not our intention to conduct detailed inquiries in every case. If one party has a stable job or realistic prospects of a job which can reasonably be expected to maintain the two of them and their dependants, the test will normally be met.
The present rules require that, when a woman is entering, the accommodation of the sponsor must be his own or occupied by him. I remind the House that the words that have been discussed in this debate are not new; they were in the 1980 and 1983 rules. To be "adequate", the accommodation must be capable of accommodating the couple without a level of overcrowding that would be contrary to statutory provisions or those laid down by the relevant local authority. Detailed instructions will be given to entry clearance officers.
I want to stress a point which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). Inquiries will not be made as a matter of course into maintenance and accommodation at the end of the probationary period before an applicant is granted indefinite leave to remain. I repeat that paragraph 125 does not make that requirement. There are general powers in new paragraph 98, which amends old paragraph 97, for a person's limited leave to be curtailed if a person has failed to maintain and accommodate himself and any dependents without recourse to public funds during that probationary period.
Important questions have been raised about the admission of children and new paragraph 50A. It is sensible if a parent arrives with a child and is given limited leave to enter that the child should be given leave on the same terms. The child is not. of course, on probation, but if, for instance, the marriage breaks down and the parent is going to return home — perhaps as a result of paragraph 125 — it is sensible that the parent and the


child should return as the family unit which they were before. I emphasise that, in the vast majority of cases, the mother—almost invariably it will be the mother who comes with the child—will be granted indefinite leave to remain after the 12 months, and that will be the end of the matter.
I assure the House that no child will be refused indefinite leave to remain at the end of the 12 months granted under new paragraph 50A on the basis that, during the period, he has become 18 or has married. I think that that assurance will clear up these problems.
I was asked about entry clearance on the Indian subcontinent. If we add more people—for example, the husbands of settled women—to those already qualified to enter, more people will claim to come and more claims will be tested. Those who want more categories of people to be qualified to enter had better recognise that what they want has consequences for entry clearance work. They cannot have it both ways. Resources are not unlimited. It is certainly a possibility that, because of these changes, some applicants will have to wait longer for an interview. Efforts will be made to keep increases in delays to a minimum through the redeployment of staff and other measures.
I have been asked about numbers. It has already been said that extending to settled women the right to sponsor the entry of husbands could, without any other changes, mean an increase in the annual settlement figure from the world as a whole of 2,000, of which no more than 600 will come from the Indian subcontinent. We cannot say what the impact in terms of numbers of the new maintenance and accommodation test will be. We can estimate the effect of extending the right to settled women because we can look back to the number of applicants for entry prior to 1980, but obviously there is no scope for making a similar estimate for the new maintenance and accommodation test.
I assure the House that the right hon. Member for Gorton, who claimed that the court's ruling meant that 3,350 men had been wrongly excluded since 1980, was talking nonsense. Only 100 husbands and 400 fiancés have been refused for lack of the birth qualification between 1980 and 1983, or the citizenship qualification between 1983 and the present date.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary reminded the House of the position regarding numbers. The House can consider the changes that are now being made in the context of the dramatic decline in immigration since the Government took office in 1979. In 1978, 72,300 people from the whole world were granted settlement, of whom 42,000 came from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan, and 26,000 from the Indian subcontinent. In 1984, the world figure decreased to 50,000, the new Commonwealth and Pakistan figure decreased by almost half to 24,000, and the Indian subcontinent figure decreased to 14,000. Everybody can rest assured that the Government have been as good as their word, and have exercised firm and fair control.
Hon. Members have sometimes said that the House fails to take cognisance of the fact that more people leave the country than come to it. That is not entirely true. In 1983 there was more immigration that emigration. Generally speaking, I agree that in recent years that has been the case. In any event, it does not begin to provide

an argument against immigration control. One must consider the skills of those who leave and those who come, the areas from which people depart and the areas to which they come—almost invariably city centres—and the strain which can be put on the social services, the education service and housing in some areas as a result of a considerable number of immigrants.
We have presented the House with a balanced package. The reaction of the official Opposition has been singularly unbalanced. The Opposition are entirely out of touch with the anxieties felt by ordinary men and women that there should be firm immigration control. The public can judge from the utterances today what mischief the Opposition would wreak if, by some misfortune, they were returned to office. They tell us that they would not intend to scrap immigration control, but all their proposals seem to lead to that end. This afternoon we have done what the vast majority of people would expect us to do. We have complied with the judgment and, at the same time, maintained firm immigration control.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 307.

Division No. 287]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Deakins, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Dewar, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Donald


Ashdown, Paddy
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, Jack


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dubs, Alfred


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barnett, Guy
Eadie, Alex


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beith, A. J.
Fatchett, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin


Blair, Anthony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Forrester, John


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Freud, Clement


Bruce, Malcolm
Garrett, W. E.


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Godman, Dr Norman


Campbell, Ian
Golding, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gould, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Gourlay, Harry


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Cartwright, John
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Thomas
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Coleman, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Craigen, J. M.
Home Robertson, John


Crowther, Stan
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Douglas


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)






Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Janner, Hon Greville
Richardson, Ms Jo


John, Brynmor
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Kennedy, Charles
Rowlands, Ted


Lambie, David
Ryman, John


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Leighton, Ronald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Litherland, Robert
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Hugh
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Snape, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Meacher, Michael
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Michie, William
Tinn, James


Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wainwright, R.


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wallace, James


Nellist, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert


O'Brien, William
Weetch, Ken


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Welsh, Michael


Park, George
White, James


Parry, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Gordon


Pendry, Tom
Winnick, David


Penhaligon, David
Woodall, Alec


Pike, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. James Hamilton and


Redmond, M.
 Mr. Robin Corbett.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom
Brinton, Tim


Ashby, David
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Aspinwall, Jack
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Browne, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bruinvels, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butcher, John


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Hon Adam


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butterfill, John


Beggs, Roy
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, William
Carttiss, Michael


Best, Keith
Cash, William


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chapman, Sydney


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chope, Christopher


Blackburn, John
Churchill, W. S.


Body, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bottomley, Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cockeram, Eric


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Colvin, Michael





Conway, Derek
Howard, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cope, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Corrie, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Critchley, Julian
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Dicks, Terry
Irving, Charles


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Robert
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dykes, Hugh
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Emery, Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
Kilfedder, James A.


Eyre, Sir Reginald
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Farr, Sir John
Knight, Dame Jill (Eagbaston)


Favell, Anthony
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knox, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman


Fletcher, Alexander
Lang, Ian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lawler, Geoffrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawrence, Ivan


Forth, Eric
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fox, Marcus
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Franks, Cecil
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Freeman, Roger
Lester, Jim


Fry, Peter
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Galley, Roy
Lightbown, David


Gardiner. George (Reigate)
Lilley, Peter


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lord, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Luce, Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lyell, Nicholas


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McCrindle, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gorst, John
McCusker, Harold


Gow, Ian
Macfarlane, Neil


Gower, Sir Raymond
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maclean, David John


Greenway, Harry
Major, John


Gregory, Conal
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Maples, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marland, Paul


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mather, Carol


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hanley, Jeremy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mellor, David


Harris, David
Merchant, Piers


Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hawksley, Warren
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hayes, J.
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayward, Robert
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heath coat-Amory, David
Moore, John


Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hickmet, Richard
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David


Hind, Kenneth
Murphy, Christopher


Hirst, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Needham, Richard


Holt, Richard
Nelson, Anthony


Hordern, Sir Peter
Neubert, Michael






Newton, Tony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Nicholls, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Nicholson, J.
Sims, Roger


Normanton, Tom
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Norris, Steven
Spencer, Derek


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Osborn, Sir John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Ottaway, Richard
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Parris, Matthew
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Terlezki, Stefan


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Porter, Barry
Trippier, David


Portillo, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powell, William (Corby)
Viggers, Peter


Powley, John
Waddington, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Price, Sir David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Prior, Rt Hon James
Walden, George


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Raffan, Keith
Ward, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Tim
Watson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Watts, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Whitney, Raymond


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



Scott, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
 Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 194.

Division No. 288]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ancram, Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Arnold, Tom
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashby, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Aspinwall, Jack
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brinton, Tim


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Browne, John


Baldry, Tony
Bruinvels, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Sir Antony


Beggs, Roy
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butcher, John


Benyon, William
Butler, Hon Adam


Best, Keith
Butterfill, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carttiss, Michael


Blackburn, John
Cash, William


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chapman, Sydney





Chope, Christopher
Henderson, Barry


Churchill, W. S.
Hickmet, Richard


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hirst, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cockeram, Eric
Holt, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cope, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Corrie, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Critchley, Julian
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Dicks, Terry
Irving, Charles


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Robert
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Durant, Tony
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Kilfedder, James A.


Evennett, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Farr, Sir John
Knowles, Michael


Favell, Anthony
Knox, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lamont, Norman


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Fletcher, Alexander
Latham, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawler, Geoffrey


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fox, Marcus
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Franks, Cecil
Lester, Jim


Freeman, Roger
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fry, Peter
Lightbown, David


Galley, Roy
Lilley, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lord, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Luce, Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lyell, Nicholas


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McCrindle, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Gow, Ian
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maclean, David John


Grant, Sir Anthony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Greenway, Harry
Major, John


Gregory, Conal
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Maples, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marland, Paul


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mather, Carol


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maude, Hon Francis


Hanley, Jeremy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Harris, David
Mellor, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Merchant, Piers


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hayes, J.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hayward, Robert
Monro, Sir Hector


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heddle, John
Moore, John






Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Scott, Nicholas


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mudd, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Murphy, Christopher
Shersby, Michael


Neale, Gerrard
Sims, Roger


Needham, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Nelson, Anthony
Spencer, Derek


Newton, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nicholson, J.
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Normanton, Tom
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Norris, Steven
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Onslow, Cranley
Stradling Thomas, J.


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Osborn, Sir John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Ottaway, Richard
Terlezki, Stefan


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M,


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Parris, Matthew
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Trippier, David


Pawsey, James
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Viggers, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Waddington, David


Porter, Barry
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Portillo, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Powley, John
Ward, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Prior, Rt Hon James
Watson, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Watts, John


Raffan, Keith
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


Renton, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Winterton, Nicholas


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Younger, Rt Hon George


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Sackville, Hon Thomas
 Mr. Michael Neubert.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy





NOES


Abse, Leo
Budgen, Nick


Anderson, Donald
Caborn, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Ashdown, Paddy
Campbell, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Canavan, Dennis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Guy
Cartwright, John


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Thomas


Beith, A. J.
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Benn, Tony
Coleman, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Bermingham, Gerald
Conlan, Bernard


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Blair, Anthony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Craigen, J. M.


Boyes, Roland
Crowther, Stan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bruce, Malcolm
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric





Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Donald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dobson, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dormand, Jack
Meacher, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Meadowcroft, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mikardo, Ian


Eadie, Alex
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Nellist, David


Fatchett, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
O'Brien, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Park, George


Fisher, Mark
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pavitt, Laurie


Forrester, John
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Foulkes, George
Pike, Peter


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Prescott, John


Freud, Clement
Radice, Giles


Garrett, W. E.
Randall, Stuart


George, Bruce
Redmond, M.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Godman, Dr Norman
Richardson, Ms Jo


Golding, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Gould, Bryan
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Gourlay, Harry
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rooker, J. W.


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Hardy, Peter
Ryman, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sedgemore, Brian


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sheerman, Barry


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Haynes, Frank
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Heffer, Eric S.
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Home Robertson, John
Snape, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Soley, Clive


Hoyle, Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Straw, Jack


Janner, Hon Greville
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Tinn, James


Kennedy, Charles
Torney, Tom


Lambie, David
Wainwright, R.


Lamond, James
Wallace, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Leighton, Ronald
Wareing, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Weetch, Ken


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Welsh, Michael


Litherland, Robert
White, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McCartney, Hugh
Wilson, Gordon


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Winnick, David


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Woodall, Alec


Maclennan, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McNamara, Kevin



McWilliam, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Madden, Max
Mr. James Hamilton and


Marek, Dr John
 Mr. Robin Corbett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 503).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Child Abduction and Custody Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Immigration Rules (Statement of Changes)

Sir Russell Johnston: I beg to move,
That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (Cmnd. 9539), which was laid before this House during the Spring Adjournment, be revoked.
It has been several weeks since the leader of the Liberal party and other Liberal Members first tabled a prayer against the proposal. We are glad that members of the Labour party have added their names to our motion and that the Government have finally found time for a debate. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has explained that, for extremely good reasons, he cannot be present for the debate.
The main purpose of the rules was to impose a visa requirement on citizens of Sri Lanka wishing to enter the United Kingdom. That, as the Minister sadly knows, was the first time that Commonwealth citizens had been subject to visa requirements. When the new requirement was first announced, Parliament was in recess and hon. Members were thereby prevented from questioning Ministers.
Only 10 hours' notice was given before enforcement was made. That contrasts with the position at the time of the Iranian revolution when a substantial number of asylum claims were made and one week's notice was given. I do not complain about it, but it contrasts with the treatment of a Commonwealth country which was given only 10 hours' notice.
Members on both sides of the House must surely agree that the British Government have a historical responsibility, for the inter-racial disharmony in Sri Lanka — perhaps not a direct one, as we cannot carry these burdens for ever, but it was the British who amalgamated Tamil and Singhalese kingdoms for their own administrative convenience in 1833 when they captured the area from the Dutch.
The present violence began in July 1983 when an attack by the so-called Liberation Tigers of the Tamils, dedicated to creating a separate Tamil state, attacked a convoy of Singhalese soldiers in a Sri Lankan army unit. That sparked off reprisal attacks from the south. Soon after, virtually the whole island was engulfed in communal rioting and it was estimated that in one week between 400 and 800 Tamils were killed.

Mr. Dave Nellist: While not associating myself with the activities of any of the 30-odd organisations to one of which the hon. Gentleman referred, does he agree that it is equally fair to say that that convoy was attacked because on the previous day three young Tamil-speaking girls had been kidnapped, that two of them had been raped and that the people in the area where the convoy was attacked had responded not just on the day of the attack on the convoy but in incidents up to 48 hours before the convoy incident?

Sir Russell Johnston: As I shall show, the problem with intercommunal disputes is that inevitably examples of terrible occurrences can be quoted on both sides. I was dealing briefly with the historical background. There is no doubt that after that outbreak of rioting tens of thousands of Tamil houses and businesses in the south and west were destroyed or damaged and that about 250,000 people were made homeless, at least temporarily.
Since 1983, violent episodes continued, growing in frequency and severity in early 1985. Hon. Members will recall that in February 1985, the hon. Members for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) visited Sri Lanka on behalf of the parliamentary human rights group. I warmly recommend a reading of their report. Their task was extremely difficult, but they succeeded in producing a balanced and fair report.
I was about to say when the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) interrupted that in all intercommunal disputes rooted in history wrongs are to be found on both sides, and I do not want in this debate to set myself up as some sort of judge on what has happened. The nub of the problem was clearly stated on the first page of the report of those hon. Members, when they said:
For many years the Singhalese community felt that the Tamils were unduly favoured, in particular in educational provision and in obtaining jobs in government and commerce. After independence, the majority Singhalese, regardless of party political persuasion, implemented a series of measures, most notably the replacement of English as the official language by Singhalese, which in their view sought to remedy injustices in society but which the Tamil community saw as part of a plan to diminish their rights and their status.
After the hon. Members left the country, there occurred the ghastly episode at Anuradhapura, when, on 14 May 1985, the so-called Tamil Tigers shot 146 Singhalese civilians. Reprisals, according to many eye witnesses, were often unselective and harsh. On 24 May 1985, Amnesty International, which is well respected by hon. Members in all parts of the House, issued a statement repeating its call to Governments throughout the world not to send back to Sri Lanka members of the Tamil minority who feared return to that country. It said that if returned to Sri Lanka Tamils faced the risk of
Arbitrary killing by members of the security forces in reprisal for the killing of their own men or of members of the Singhalese community … Arbitrary arrest and possible long-term incommunicado detention, particularly of young men, their relatives often remaining unaware of their whereabouts for weeks or months after arrest … ill-treatment and torture after arrest.
It noted that a number of prisoners had disappeared. It described incidents
currently being investigated by Amnesty International which it has reasonable grounds to believe may be extrajudicial killings.
Those involved the murder of 188 civilians, apparently by members of the armed forces, in four separate incidents in different parts of the island between 9 and 18 May 1985.
In May 1985, the number of Tamils seeking refuge in Britain drastically increased. It is important to put in perspective the number of Tamils seeking asylum in Britain. It is only about 2,500, as against 100,000 in India, which is understandable as they came from there originally, 20,000 in Germany and 19,000 in France—neither of those countries has any historical responsibiliy for or relationship with the Tamils — 3,500 in the Netherlands and, of all places, 2,500 in Switzerland, which has a population of only 5 million. Britain accepted


17,000 Hungarians in three weeks in 1956, and we have managed, with all praise to successive Governments, to accept some 20,000 Vietnamese since 1975.
Few of the Tamils reaching Britain have been accorded refugee status as defined by the Home Office. In 1984, there were only two, and that means that the Tamils here are in an insecure limbo. The United Nations convention on the status of refugees says that a refugee is a person who
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such a fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.
When Tamils started to flee to Britain in 1983, they were refused asylum and were returned to Sri Lanka.
This year, in May, things came slowly to a head. First, on 20 May, the Home Secretary announced that each case would be considered individually and a recently arrived Tamil expressing fear of his return would be granted a 12 months exceptional leave to remain only if there is reason to believe that he would suffer severe hardship if he were to return to Sri Lanka. If he is unable to satisfy the test, he will be returned to Sri Lanka.
I do not criticise the immigration officials. They have a desperate job to do, trying to interpret the regulations that the House lays on them, and about which they are supposed to use their discretion. Of course, some of them make a bog of it sometimes, and they are sometimes harsh, but I do not intend to use this debate to make an attack on people who have a desperately difficult task to do.
Further measures were then taken to restrict the rights of Tamils. In particular—I complain about this, as all hon. Members should—Members of Parliament wishing to intervene on behalf of those who have been refused permission to stay, often after fairly brief interviews, were told that representations must be submitted within 24 hours of a sign of interest in a case. That is a tight requirement, and does not accord with normal procedure. Then, on 29 May, the rule was laid.
The Government announced that such visas would be granted only if applicants could show that they were suffering severe hardship and that circumstances warranted the exercise of discretion in their favour outside the immigration rules. These restrictions were criticised by all the main refugee organisations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Pout Hartling, said that the visa requirements could restrict flight from difficult situations and therefore he did not like them. The director of the British Refugee Council, Martin Barber, described the Government's response to the situation in Sri Lanka as "deeply disappointing". The general secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Fiona Mactaggart, described the visa requirement as
a callous and unprecedented move against Commonwealth citizens.
She said that the Government's panic had added to the danger faced by Tamils seeking to leave Sri Lanka, since they were now sitting targets for the persecution that they fear, precisely because they are seeking but failing to leave the country. Many Tamils had bought tickets but were refused permission to board flights to Britain. Many were scared to leave Colombo airport because they were afraid of reprisals if they travelled home. There was an incident when a Tamil queuing for a visa outside the high commission was arrested and beaten up by the police.
Despite the allocation of three temporary and two permanent extra staff to the high commission, many visa

applications were not processed. Applicants began to queue in the middle of the night, but only the first few people in the queue were seen; the others were turned away. Therefore, those who were attempting to flee had to expose themselves to risk every day. That does riot make sense.
As the Minister of State, Home Office will doubtless say, other European countries have visa requirements, but they are not enforced. Only Britain, with its island borders and airline collaboration, is able to impose an almost unbreakable visa régime.
I should like to make three points about the way in which this flow of refugees has operated that have not been sufficiently highlighted. First, young male Tamils are often exposed to threats from their own extremists that are equal to, if not more severe than, the more publicised actions of the Sri Lankan Government's security forces. They are told that they should be out there fighting for their independence and freedom. If they refuse, there is the danger that they may be strung up. Many of these young Tamils are peace loving. They simply want to get on with their ordinary lives. But they are being squeezed from two sides. If they are not refugees, who in Heaven's name are?
Secondly, in the sad world of refugees it is fascinating to observe how powerful is the influence of rumour about the right place to go. Rumour about where it is safe to go has played a significant part in the dispersal of refugees. The rumour is that France is a good place to go to, so head for France; Britain is not "on". Hon. Members may reasonably say that all European countries have visa requirements, so what is wrong about Britain having them? Leaving on one side the fact that Britain has never before had visa requirements, what happens is that the refugees come via eastern Europe. An enormous number of refugees landed in east Berlin. The east Germans are prepared to keep in their own nationals, but they let out the nationals of other countries. A strange fact about the channel, the sea gap, is that it makes a tangible difference to the way in which people behave.
I do not deny that some Tamils are economic refugees, but it is difficult to say who is an economic refugee and who is a political refugee. Is it fair to be a refugee because one feels that one cannot lead a reasonable life because of the economic situation, or does one have to hold strong ideological views that are being repressed? There are some Tamils who are not at risk. Tamils are still serving throughout the Sri Lankan administration. But that is not true of the vast majority of Tamils who come, otherwise why are they going in such large numbers to live in impoverished conditions in refugee camps in south India and in Germany? I mentioned earlier the 20,000 refugees in Germany. They do not live in the lap of luxury. They live in what amount to prison camps. They are not allowed out, except for limited periods. It is not what one might call a reasonably happy existence, but they prefer it to the fear of arbitrary death.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he has already made this point; if he has not, he might like the opportunity to do so, because it is very important. If a Tamil is under stress and duress in Sri Lanka and is at the end of his tether and has to get out, why should he decide to come to the United Kingdom rather than go to India?

Sir Russell Johnston: I accept that all the points made by the hon. Gentleman are extremely important. I did deal


with that matter. If the hon. Gentleman is assiduous, as I am sure he always is, he will find that I said that over 100,000 Tamil refugees are in India now, having come directly from Sri Lanka.
The Liberals, Social Democrats and Labour Members are opposing the new rules tonight because they seem to us to be more concerned with limiting Asian immigration than, in the words of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, with
humanitarian principles which led Britain in the past to gain a reputation for generous treatment of people seeking refuge from oppression abroad".
It is in stark contrast to the treatment of Poles—I very much approve of their treatment—who were in Britain at the time of the declaration of martial law in Poland. They were immediately covered by an automatic policy of 12 months exceptional leave to remain, annually renewable.
As a signatory to the United Nations convention on refugees, Britain should welcome Tamils seeking temporary refuge outside their country while the situation there remains volatile. At the very least, the Government should withdraw the new visa requirements. Therefore, I commend the Prayer to the House.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: It is not my intention to speak other than briefly, because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Nor is it my intention to enter into a great deal of detail about the merits and demerits of the internal situation in Sri Lanka.
There is ample evidence from Amnesty International and from several other reputable organisations that if Tamils come here because they are in fear of their lives, they have justification for doing so and for saying, "We are in danger and would like to have asylum in Britain". The evidence of the Amnesty International report in particular is very convincing.
It is not a new problem; sadly, for Sri Lanka, it has existed for a number of years. In 1983, just under 400 Tamils sought asylum in Britain; in 1984, there were nearly 500. In May this year, 1,260 came to Britain. I think it was that number that panicked the Home Office into the measures that we are discussing this evening. A trifling number of people — 1,260 — is not a sound justification for the major changes in Britain's practice and attitudes that are embraced in the immigration rule changes that we are now discussing.
The UN convention on the status of refugees defines a refugee as a person who
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such a fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
That is a fairly broad definition and seems to cover many of the Tamils, if not all, who have come to Britain and asked for asylum. However, the Home Secretary produced a rather narrower definition. We call it his hardship definition. The factors were defined, in answer to a parliamentary question, as being
whether the applicant or his immediate family has recently suffered physical injury or serious material loss as a result of a disturbance in Sri Lanka; the area of Sri Lanka from which he comes; and the extent of any political involvement he has had in Sri Lanka".—[Official Report, 6 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 220.]

That is much narrower and more difficult than the United Nations test. I question the need for that more restrictive policy.
The Home Secretary has also departed from normal practice by making it much more difficult for hon. Members to intervene on behalf of refugees from Sri Lanka by providing that written representations must reach the Home Office within 24 hours. That is an unprecedented restriction on the right of hon. Members to make representations on behalf of their constituents or relatives of constituents in immigration cases. There is no justification for that provision. If hon. Members receive an urgent request on Friday evening or Saturday, it is unrealistic to expect them to get written representations to the Home Office within 24 hours.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's definition of refugees, but will he explain which country has responsibility for taking in a person who claims to be a refugee?

Mr. Dubs: There is a simple answer to that question. Under international practice, virtually all countries share responsibility. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said, India has taken 100,000 Tamils, but responsibility has been shared by many European countries and the figures show that we have played a lesser role than many other countries. We compare badly, particularly as we have a traditional Commonwealth link with Sri Lanka which suggests that we should have been in the forefront of accepting refugees. Traditional links are often a major determining factor in sharing responsibility.
In the light of the situation in May, the Home Secretary imposed a visa requirement. It was the first time that any Commonwealth country had had imposed on its people the requirement that anyone coming here for a short stay should have a visa. The difficulty is not merely the bureaucracy involved in that requirement but the fact that Tamils have to go to our high commission in Colombo and wait while visa applications are dealt with. We know that they have to go through army road blocks on the way to Colombo and are sometimes told that there is no certainty that they will be allowed back to their villages to await the outcome of their application.
We are making difficulties for the Tamils and that contrasts with our much more relaxed attitude to refugees from other countries. Poland has been mentioned, and even with Iranians we did not impose requirements as quickly and stringently as we have with the Tamils. In a recent decision, Mr. Justice Taylor warned the Home Office not to use "artificial and inhuman criteria" when deciding whether Tamils fleeing from violence in Sri Lanka should be granted political asylum. The judge overturned the Minister of State's refusal of asylum and directed that he should reconsider the case.
As I said, 100,000 Tamil refugees have been accepted in southern India, and other countries have played their part. Perhaps some Tamils are economic migrants, but I find it difficult to believe that people who have left good homes and jobs and cars—some students have left just before they were due to take examinations — can be mere economic migrants. Many Tamils have left behind something that they will find it hard to attain in this country, even if they are allowed to stay here long enough to get jobs and establish an economic well-being.
I particularly regret that fact that the visa requirement was imposed at short notice and that no warning was given. Our policy towards Tamil refugees is a major departure from our traditional offer of hospitality and asylum to people from any country who are in danger of their lives. This is a regrettable step. We have taken it against people from a fellow Commonwealth country, and that makes it more regrettable. I should like the Home Secretary to drop the visa requirements as quickly as possible and to state clearly what he intends to do when the six-month period of exceptional leave expires for many of the Tamils who arrived earlier this year. We shall have to make some difficult decisions. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to allow the people to stay until the position in Sri Lanka is properly resolved. It is up to him to make it clear that he will not send anyone back until there is an absolute assurance that the people will return in safety.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I look upon this debate as being at least as important as the one that preceded it. People who are not refugees and do not belong here have not much to complain about if we say that in this small overcrowded country we have no room for them. But people who are not just coming here for a better life but are fleeing from persecution are entitled to special consideration, and we have always given such people that consideration. Our tradition of giving sanctuary to those fleeing from persecution goes back many years. Recently, as the House knows and as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said, we have given sanctuary to Poles, Iranians and citizens of many other countries who have made new lives here.
I remind the House that the refugee statistics do not tell the whole story. Often we are told that we are not taking as many refugees as other countries. In addition to those granted asylum on the basis of individual applications, we have admitted large numbers of refugees under specific programmes, most recently the 19,000 Vietnamese who do not appear in the refugee statistics as such. Many people who are not granted asylum are nevertheless allowed to stay exceptionally because of the conditions in the countries from which they have come.
There is a serious misconception which I must point out to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). When my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was talking about the considerations that were borne in mind in deciding whether exceptional hardship would be suffered by a person if he returned to Sri Lanka, he was referring to the criteria that would be applied in the case of someone who had already been found not to be a refugee. Those criteria were to go only to the question of whether a person who had been found not to be a refugee within the terms of the convention should still, be allowed to stay exceptionally.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said, we have to look at the history of this matter. I shall not go back as far as he did, but I shall go back to July 1983 because one has to set the scene. In July there was a serious outbreak of intercommunal violence. It was not the first outbreak, but it was the most severe for many years. Tamils already here and those who came here from Sri Lanka in the immediate aftermath of that violence and expressed a fear of return were not sent back while the

situation there remained dangerous and uncertain. By September 1983 the situation had improved sufficiently for normal immigration procedures to be applied, but in the spring of 1984 conditions deteriorated again. In April 1984 it was again decided to defer returning Tamils who expressed a fear of return while policy was reviewed in the light of developments.
By April this year we faced a situation in which some Tamils had been here for as long as 12 months on temporary admission in uncertainty about their future. This clearly could not continue. We had to decide whether the situation in Sri Lanka required a general policy of granting exceptional leave to remain to any Tamil who expressed a fear of return, or whether some less all-embracing policy was by then appropriate. Our assessment at that time, based on regular reports from our high commissioner in Colombo, was that, although intercommunal problems remained severe, there had been no repetition of the widespread violence against Tamils that occurred in 1983. There had been a series of terrorist attacks and some reprisals against the Tamil community; but a large proportion of the Tamil population, including Indian Tamils in the centre of the island and the large Tamil community in Colombo and its environs, were relatively unaffected.

Mr. Nellist: Regarding the high commissioner's report, did any of the staff of the high commission visit Jaffna or the eastern province, or did he rely on Government reports about the position in the north and east?

Mr. Waddington: The high commissioner certainly did not rely only on Government reports. Representatives of the high commission travelled, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman more details than that.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In an answer from the Minister and information from the Home Office, he said that the high commission had not visited Jaffna at any time this year. Are there any plans for high commission staff now to travel to Jaffna and the eastern provinces so that we can have an accurate report of the position?

Mr. Waddington: What I said to the hon. Gentleman in no way conflicts with his comments. I must remember my responsibilities. All I can do is pass on his observations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
As a result of those circumstances in Sri Lanka, the Home Secretary announced on 20 May that Tamils who arrived on or before 20 April would be granted six months leave to remain, and that their cases would then be reviewed, with those who would suffer severe hardship if returned being granted further leave to remain. Those Tamils who arrived after 20 April 1985 would not be granted the automatic initial six months, but their cases would be studied individually, and those who would suffer severe hardship if returned would be allowed to stay.
Meanwhile, in the latter part of April and early May there had been a sharp increase in the number of Tamils arriving in the United Kingdom and claiming asylum. About 550 arrived in the first three weeks of May, including 101 in a single day on 17 May. After the Home Secretary's announcement, they continued to arrive in increasing numbers. In the week beginning 20 May, more than 500 came. On a single day, 29 May, 244 arrived,


making a total of 1,330 for the month. The flow showed every sign of continuing with the immigration service and refugee agencies being put under increasing strain. In those circumstances, my right hon. and learned Friend decided to impose the visa requirement of which there has been a great deal of criticism.

Sir Russell Johnston: Did the Home Secretary hold discussions with other European countries about the type of flows that they were experiencing?

Mr. Waddington: We were well aware of the flows in other European countries, and we had no choice but to take that decision. Others may have viewed with equanimity the prospect of literally hundreds of Tamils continuing to arrive every day, but not many were in that relaxed frame of mind.
I remind the House that the Home Office is often criticised for keeping people in places such as Harmondsworth. I have little doubt that many Sri Lankan Tamils were glad to have a place in Harmondsworth because they had nowhere to go, and I hope that hon. Members realise that. I pay tribute to the efforts by all those concerned, including the Tamil community, to find and provide accommodation to enable Tamils, often with no friends or relatives here, to be granted temporary admission rather than be detained. Eventually all were granted temporary admission and none remained in detention. The House must realise that we passed a few difficult days when there was nowhere to put those people who were arriving with nowhere to go.
The applications of those who were granted temporary admission are now being considered in the normal way. Of those who arrived in the latter part of April and May, 500 have had their cases considered. Refugee status has been granted in two cases, exceptional leave to remain in 35, and the remainder have been refused in principle and referred to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.
Since 20 May one Tamil has been removed to Colombo, 13 to western European destinations, five to India and two to countries in the middle east. Significantly—the House will be interested in this—about 13 have withdrawn their applications, and embarked voluntarily,—at least eight direct to Sri Lanka. That has a bearing on the assessment of how many of them had come in a state of complete terror unwilling ever to return to their homelands.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Clearly the issue is whether or not Tamils would be returned to Sri Lanka against their will. Can the Government, as in the case of Iranians, make it clear that they are reluctant to return individuals to Tehran? Can they give the House a similar assurance on Tamils to Sri Lanka?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman must have read the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The applications of all those who claim asylum are examined extremely carefully. If the conclusion is reached that they do not qualify, a second decision has to be reached, which is whether they would suffer exceptional hardship if they were returned to Sri Lanka. If we find that they would, they will not be returned. If we have first found that they do not qualify for

refugee status under the United Nations convention and if we find, secondly, that they would not suffer exceptional hardship if returned to Sri Lanka, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that they should not be allowed to stay here if they do not qualify to do so under the immigration rules.
It has been said that other western European countries have accommodated considerably larger numbers of Tamils. That is true, but it is not a situation that those countries welcome. To a large extent it has been forced on them because of their geographical situation. In particular, large numbers of Tamils have entered West Germany via East Berlin and there is little that West Germans can do about it. But in imposing a visa requirement, we were fully in line with the position in most other western European countries. I am aware that in recent months other western European countries have returned only a small number of Tamils to Sri Lanka. The same goes for us, and I do not believe that the assessment of other Governments differs very much from our own.
Recently the Dutch Government, for instance, reported to the Netherlands Parliament that the situation in the south of Sri Lanka had returned to normal and Tamils were migrating from the north to the south, particularly to Colombo, where they were not exposed to violence. As a result, the Dutch authorities are now considering each case on its merits, as we are, and on 4 July 1985 they announced that any Sri Lankans arriving in the Netherlands en route to other destinations would require a transit visa, and that those who did not have a visa would be returned to their country of origin. Belgium and Luxembourg have also imposed transit visas.
We were, of course, saddened to have to impose a visa requirement, and it was only with great reluctance that we did so. But visa requirements between Commonwealth countries are by no means unprecedented. British citizens are required to obtain visas before travelling to Australia, Bangladesh, India and Nigeria. We shall, as my right hon. and learned Friend promised, keep the visa requirement under review, in the hope that it can be lifted in due course as a result of a lasting solution to the intercommunal problem in Sri Lanka.
I am glad to say that since the imposition of the visa requirement there has been some easing of the situation in Sri Lanka. A ceasefire was announced on 18 June and apart from a few isolated outbreaks of violence it has held since then. The Government have authorised the release of some 600 Tamils held in detention, travel from Jaffna to Colombo is now easier and a curfew imposed in the northern areas has been removed. There is nothing to prevent Tamils who wish to apply for a visa from travelling to the high commission in Colombo. There was much talk at the beginning about the difficulties which people might experience if they queued at the high commission. The situation has been coped with magnificently at the high commission and I gather that there is an appointment system. People can wait inside the building until they are seen. So far, there have not been enormous problems.

Mr. Corbyn: Reports were received that people were turned away from the high commission when they arrived in the morning to queue. An allegation was made that one person was taken off that queue and later assaulted by the police who had seen him queueing to try to get a visa to


come to this country. We ought to be quite clear about the arrangements for the safety of people who attend the high commission to apply for visas to come here.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Member has mentioned a matter about which, if my memory serves me rightly, I wrote to him. It is true that, for the first day or two there were queues outside the high commission, and that is why the system was altered in order to accommodate those who wished to apply for visas. On the other matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, he has been put right by letter, and I hope he will accept what we have said and not continue helping to spread a rumour which had no foundation.
There was a rumour about police beating up people in the queue, but on the day in relation to which this complaint was made, two incidents occurred. In the first a British subject of Sri Lankan Singhalese origin who has a record of visiting the high commission and becoming abusive and violent towards the staff, was removed by the police at the request of the staff. He was taken to the police station opposite the high commission and was seen to leave about half an hour later, apparently unharmed. He certainly was not a Tamil. In the second incident, a youth was seen to run away from the queue when approached by the police. The high commission is not aware that he was subsequently arrested or ill-treated. Those two incidents outside the high commission seem to be the origin of the various rumours.
In his statement of 6 June, my right hon. and learned Friend said that the imposition of a visa requirement would not prevent the entry of those Sri Lankan citizens who qualified for admission in the normal way — for example, as visitors or students—although they would of course have to obtain visas before travelling. I am pleased to say that experience of dealing with visa applications in Colombo has fully borne this out. Between 30 May and 18 July, some 2,000 visa applications were received in Colombo. Of these, 760 applications were made by Tamils, of which 490 were granted. So much for all the talk about people being unwilling to go to the high commission because they were terrified to do so. Two hundred of the applications were refused and the remainder were referred to London for further consideration.
On 6 June the Home Secretary also announced that it would be open to a Tamil who did not qualify under the immigration rules to apply for a visa on the ground that he was suffering severe hardship, and the circumstances—including, for example, family links with this country—warranted the exercise of discretion in his favour outside the normal immigration rules. I repeat what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs): that that had nothing whatsoever to do with judging a person's entitlement to refugee status.
Up to 18 July, 42 such applications have been made. Twenty-one have been refused and the remainder are under consideration, but decisions in some of the outstanding cases will be made shortly. Additionally, we have dealt sympathetically with a number of Tamils arriving here without visas where there have been compassionate circumstances.
The hon. Member for Battersea referred to the decision by the Home Secretary to ask hon. Members to make representations within 24 hours. There was a considerable

influx, and it seemed to us right to ask hon. Members to help in this situation by putting in their representations as quickly as possible.
I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that I am helpful about representations by hon. Members, but I can assure the House that some hon. Members stretch my patience to the limit. Many hon. Members say that they wish to make representations, and nothing is heard from them for weeks and weeks. Often hon. Members say that they will be making representations, we write back to them, and they say that they will not make representations after all. Apparently they approached my Department in the first place only to gain temporary admissions.
There is a real difficulty here. Given a very large influx, we could not allow any hon. Member perhaps to take weeks and weeks investigating the case of an individual Tamil. It was only fair to ask hon. Members to put on their skates arid let us know what they had to say as soon as possible. But I should not like hon. Members to think that we had applied the rule inflexibly. There are hon. Members present tonight who know that we have not. If hon. Members came back to us saying that they could not prepare their representations in 24 hours and that they wanted a little more time, we did not apply the rule inflexibly. But we wanted to make the point that this was exceptional and that we could not allow hon. Members to expect us to wait literally weeks and weeks to hear what they wanted to say to us.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Surely there is a difference between delays of weeks and weeks, presumably on the part of some hon. Members who may or may not be present, and 24 hours. If the Minister had said that he required a submission to be in within a given number of days, that might have been reasonable, but 24 hours is virtually impossible, not only because of the possibility of an intervening weekend but because of the problems of establishing a written submission—not least because. in so many cases with deportation notices, we have found, perhaps by coincidence, that they arrive on Friday evening or even on a Saturday.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has a touching faith in human nature. I think that saying that we wanted representations in 24 hours concentrated the mind wonderfully in the case of one or two hon. Members, and that if we had said that they should be made within a few days, it would more likely 'lave taken a few weeks. I thought that it was sensible to make the point that we faced exceptional circumstances and that it was very important for hon. Members to let us know as soon as possible what they had to say.

Sir Russell Johnston: In the Iranian case, a week was given. A week is reasonable; it gives sufficient time and is sensible. There was a crisis then too. There was a flood of people coming in. What is the difference between the two situations?

Mr. Waddington: Curiously enough, asking hon. Members to let us have their representations within 24 hours does not seem in the event to have caused them all that much difficulty. It seems as though my right hon. and learned Friend was entirely right and that he judged the situation accurately. He realised that if he asked hon. Members to do it within 24 hours, they could.

Mr. Max Madden: The Minister will recall the young Tamil who was removed in error before


his representations had been considered by the Minister. Subsequently, I have been informed that, on the basis of the representations, the Minister was not satisfied that that young man was facing sufficient danger not to be returned. I understand that further representations of a very serious nature have now been made. Will the Minister undertake to consider those representations urgently and comprehensively?

Mr. Waddington: If any representations are made to me and the hon. Gentleman asks me to consider them urgently, I shall do so. However, it must be said that I do not know the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In view of his intervention, perhaps I had better fill in a little of the history of the case of Mr. Raveenthiran. Mr. Raveenthiran was returned to Colombo on 4 June, following refusal of his asylum application but before representations from UKIAS on his behalf were received. It was a serious error, but I think that the House will appreciate that the Tamil emergency placed a considerable strain on staff in the immigration service and in other parts of the immigration and nationality department, and it is in circumstances such as this that breakdowns in communications can occur.
We have taken steps with the aim of ensuring that nothing of the sort happens again. Our high commission has been in touch with Mr. Raveenthiran on several occasions since his return, and it is satisfied that he is safe and has not been harassed in any way. Indeed, he has told our staff that he has not been subject to persecution or harassment. The latest information is that he has now moved to Jaffna. I have also considered very carefully the evidence presented by UKIAS on behalf of Mr. Raveenthiran. I have come to the conclusion that the original decision to refuse him asylum and leave to enter was justified and that he does not qualify for a visa to return here on grounds of severe hardship. If there is any new information, I shall consider it most carefully, but all hon. Members will agree that, if that history is anything like right, it tends to support the decision taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The man was refused asylum, returned to Colombo and later told our high commission that he was safe and well.

Mr. Marlow: Can my hon. and learned Friend give us some idea of the number of Tamils seeking entry to the United Kingdom, when many were seeking entry, who were related to people already in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Waddington: I am not sure what period my hon. Friend is referring to. In that last month, there were 1,330. In the period to April 1985, about 990 had been allowed to remain on temporary admission. I cannot give a breakdown of the figures. Most were young men — many had families here and many did not. I would not try, without taking advice, to estimate how many had relatives here.
I have no doubt that the imposition of a visa requirement for Sri Lankan citizens was an unavoidable response to the situation we faced. In the light of the explanation that I have given of the background to the decisions, I believe that the House will agree that it was fully justified, and I invite the House to reject the motion.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: The Home Secretary's decision imposing visa requirements on citizens from a Commonwealth country who wish to come to Britain is unprecedented. I believe that it is to be deeply regretted and that it represents a major departure from the stand that has been taken by earlier Governments in our relations with Commonwealth countries.
I oppose the change in the rules in principle and in practice. It is on the practice and the ill-judged decision of the Government in imposing those rules that I wish to comment. In spite of the communal rioting, to which many hon. Members have referred, of the summer of 1983, and two years of intense civil strife and terrorist activity in Sri Lanka, it seems that the number of its citizens seeking leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom was reasonably static during that time.
Indeed, it was not until 20 May, when we were told by the Home Secretary that some 900 Sri Lankan Tamils were in Britain without qualification to remain here, that the number of those seeking admission began to show any sign of real increase. Although the Home Secretary's original statement was tucked away in a written answer about future policy, I believe that that statement gave rise to rumour and conjecture in Colombo: that the door was about to be closed on new arrivals and that notice was being given by the United Kingdom Government that restrictions would be imposed on those who might seek to gain admission in the future.
That rumour seemed to have some foundation when, nine days later, the Home Secretary decided that the rules had to be changed. It took him only nine days to come to that decision. It seemed to me that it was a most extraordinary choice of time in which to come to such a conclusion. In fact, the Minister himself commented upon it. It was at the beginning of a period when serious contacts were being made to bring about a ceasefire, to end civil strife in that country and to attempt a further negotiated, political settlement.
We were told by the Home Secretary in that statement that he took his decision in consultation with the Foreign Secretary and, that being the case, neither Minister could have been in doubt about the moves being made on the Indian subcontinent. Although I should no doubt be called to order if I strayed too far into the arena of foreign affairs tonight, I believe that it is right to put down a benchmark for future occasions when we discuss these matters.
The Home Secretary told the House that his reason for imposing restrictions was that he feared an escalation in the number of those seeking admission to the United Kingdom. I have to tell the Minister, and through him the Home Secretary, that I hold the firm view that any such increased migration as there was during the month of May was aparked off by no one but the Home Secretary himself. By his hamfisted statement of 20 May and his subsequent flustered and panic measures, arrived at by means that I can only describe as a poor quality-making process, he aggravated a difficult position.

Mr. Waddington: What is the hon. Lady suggesting was contained in my right hon. and learned Friend's statement that could have persuaded anybody in Sri Lanka that the doors were about to be slammed shut? What was said was that all those who had been here on temporary admission for very many months would be given an additional six months' leave to remain here.

Miss Boothroyd: The Home Secretary's statement stands. It is surprising that it was necessary for him to make such a statement by written parliamentary answer and not to allow debate or questions following such an important statement. That is why I believe that it led to rumour and conjecture in Sri Lanka.
Much as I dislike the numbers game in dealing with human beings in such a context, I understand that the escalation of which the Home Secretary spoke manifested itself in the form of some 1,300 Sri Lankan Tamils being admitted to this country. I do not know the numbers of Singhalese who came to this country during that time, and it would be interesting to know. But some 1,300 people can hardly be considered a flood. With or without the help of voluntary agencies, I doubt that such a number is a challenge to the social structure of this nation.
I am pleased that the Minister made some comment tonight about the numbers that have applied to come into this country since the end of May. I believe that the latest information takes us to 18 July, when 762 applications had been received in Colombo from Tamils and 492 visas had been granted, with 65 cases still under consideration. Applications from Singhalese numbered 1,329 with more than 1,000 visas granted. It would be interesting to know whether those applications were for refugee status or under normal immigration regulations.
As we understand that there is now an appointments system for making applications, perhaps the Minister could give some indication of how many additional applications the high commission in Colombo is expecting over the next six weeks. With a system of appointments there should be no difficulty in giving the numbers of people wishing to make applications.
Those who seek to come here no doubt do so for varying reasons. There are those who express fear of staying in, or returning to, their own country because of the possible backlash and fear of persecution from whatever source. That fear may be well-founded, but there are others whose fear of persecution is perhaps not so well-founded, and who express the wish to return home as soon as a settlement has been reached.
Let us not be mealy mouthed about it. There are those who are in no danger but who use the situation to enter and settle here to achieve a better life. I do not believe or accept that every Tamil seeking admission to this country is a political refugee at risk of life. By no means are claims of refugee status genuine in all cases. But I do believe that the total number seeking admission is not great, and that with the assistance of voluntary agencies and community groups which have shown a willingness to help, there is no reason to deny those seeking refuge temporary stay until a political settlement has been reached and the legitimacy of their claim to be at risk is investigated. This country has a tradition of providing a refuge for those who believe that they are in need of it, and it is the spirit of that tradition that I do not wish to destroy.
The changes we are opposing are very wide in the extreme. The restrictions are not only imposed on permanent residents in this country but also affect Sri Lankans living and working elsewhere. I doubt whether the Minister is aware of the distress and chaos that they cause.
I wonder whether the Minister is aware of recent circumstances where the head of a Sri Lankan family living in this country died, and the eldest son, who was resident and working in Canada, was required to attend the

funeral. I understand that in such an emergency, and in such a vast country as Canada, the son was unable to obtain an entry visa and had no alternative but to arrive here without one. After a long delay and lengthy questioning he was eventually forced to seek assistance to substantiate his reasons for coming here. That young man was allowed to enter the country but was allowed to remain for only four days.
Such treatment is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. There must be greater flexibility and understanding in dealing with such matters. It is also unacceptable for the Government to require Sri Lankan residents here to obtain re-entry visas before travelling abroad.
I cannot recall a period in the peacetime history of tins country when the movement of people was so restricted. It cannot be right for a country that claims to uphold justice and freedom to say in respect of some of its residents that a passport will not suffice and that they must obtain a reentry visa before taking a day trip to Boulogne, and pay £10 into the bargain for the privilege of being allowed back into the country in which they live. It is an insult to those who live, work and have resident status here to restrict their freedom of movement to that extent. There is no justification for such an imposition. It is shameful and should be removed without delay.
I do not accept the need to impose such regulations. The Home Secretary has taken a hammer to crack a nut, and he should lift the regulations with all speed. Indeed, he is making a grave mistake tonight in demanding that this House accepts them.

Mr. Roger Sims: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) referred to the visit that I and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) paid to Sri Lanka in February on behalf of the parliamentary human rights group. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind compliments on our report, from which he quoted. I confine myself to quoting a sentence at the end of it, when he said:
Our brief visit left us with an Impression of a beautiful island and a delightful people for whom we developed a deep affection.
I am sure that that impression will be echoed by anyone else who has had the pleasure of visiting Sri Lanka.
We found a sad and sorry picture. We entitled our report 'A Nation Divided," for that is what it is. With the co-operation of the Government, we had the opportunity to visit prisons and detention centres. Conditions did not permit us to travel to the extreme north, though we were able to travel through parts of Sri Lanka and we were given the opportunity to meet people from the north, from Jaffna and Trincomalee, and people from the south.
We met members of all the communities and, although neither of us would profess to be experts on the country after a fortnight's visit, we got a good impression of what was going on. I hasten to add that my remarks are made on a personal basis, and I would not claim for a moment to speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North, who will probably wish to put a different interpretation on some of the things that we saw and heard.
The hon. Member and I saw some extremely distressing things and drew some depressing conclusions. There was no doubt that there had been widespread incidents carried out by Tamil terrorists in the north. There was no doubt that there had been gross over-reaction on a number of


occasions by the army against Tamils. There had also been incidents in which Singhalese had been turned out of their villages and forced to flee.
We visited both Tamil and Singhalese refugee camps. To be a refugee in one's own country may seem a contradiction in terms, but, alas, that was the picture that we saw. We describe in our report our conviction that some people in custody suffered torture — which, of course, is totally unacceptable—and we describe the way in which, in the north, whole communities were cleared from their villages, losing their homes and livelihood.
We are tonight discussing whether people from Sri Lanka—in particular members of the Tamil community — should be allowed here without meeting the requirements to which the Minister referred. Reference has been made to hardship and to people living in fear, and I have little doubt that many Tamils in the north of Sri Lanka are living in constant fear. They are fearful of being attacked by terrorist groups and being forced to take part in terrorist activities.
There are living in villages Tamils who are not involved in terrorism but who fear over-reaction by the ill-disciplined army after terrorist incidents have taken place. There are Tamils living elsewhere in Sri Lanka who remember the reprisals and riots of the past and who fear that at any time they may be the victims, being in the minority elsewhere than in the north, of reprisals and have their homes attacked and destroyed.
Nor is the fear confined to the Tamil community. I fancy that after the attack in Anuradhapura, to which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber referred, many Singhalese in that area live in fear.
This all adds up to the fact that much of the population of Sri Lanka is to some extent living in fear and might claim that they could suffer hardship if they had to remain there. While, I fear that is the case, we are talking of a Tamil population alone of 3 million people. Are some hon. Members really saying that there should be no restrictions on any of them being allowed to come here and that our doors should be wide open to that number of people coming here because they claim to live in fear?
I put it to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber that the logic could equally well be applied to other parts of the world where there are communal disturbances, so there must be many people living in fear who will claim that they wish to leave their countries and not return because they will suffer hardship — for example, central America, southern Africa, the middle east, and parts of the Indian subcontinent. We must think through the logic of where the motion would lead us. I hope that the House will consider this coolly and realise what the implications are, and will realise that, reluctant though my hon. and learned Friend the Minister was to impose the visa restrictions, it was an inevitable reaction to the situation in Sri Lanka at the time.
Happily, it seems that there may have been a turn for the better in recent weeks. I know that all friends of Sri Lanka will hope that the truce will hold and that some political solution of the problem will be worked out so that there can be peace in this beautiful but unhappy country.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the winding-up speeches will begin at 11.50, so I appeal for brief contributions.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The document on which we are to be asked to vote is the most disgraceful document. It should never have been brought before the House, and it is an unprecedented move to bring in visa requirements for people coming from Commonwealth countries. I object to the reasons why it was introduced, the methods by which it was introduced and its implications. If the Government can rush through, almost secretly, visa requirements for people from Sri Lanka, they can do it for the people of any other country at any other time that suits them, for their own expediency.
We have to look briefly through the events that led to the imposition of the visa requirements. After the riots in 1983 in Sri Lanka, many people came to this country to seek refuge and asylum here. In April 1984, the Minister agreed that he would grant temporary exceptional leave to Sri Lankan Tamils to remain here. That was not entirely satisfactory because it meant that theyhad no permanent solution to their problems. However, it meant that at least they were removed rom the fear of what might happen to them in Sri Lanka.
In May this year, the situation in Sri Lanka got worse, according to accounts from virtually every newspaper correspondent in Sri Lanka and the BBC world service. However, the British Government decided that things were improving in Sri Lanka, and decided to impose a visa restriction as the culmination of a series of rather sordid manoeuvres. On 20 May, the Home Secretary answered a written question from a Tory Member, in which he said:
there is no reason to believe that Tamils returning to Sri Lanka face persecution, and few Sri Lankan Tamils are likely to qualify for refugee status in this country."—[Official Report, 20 May 1985; Vol. 79, c. 273.]
In other words, he was denying the right of refugee status on the basis of information that he had received from I do not know where in Sri Lanka that the situation was improving. There was no evidence to support that.
A few days later, on a Friday evening of a bank holiday, the information reached my office and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South-West (Mr. Nellist) that we would in future have to give, within 24 hours, written reasons as to why we wished to place a stop on the removal of certain people back to Sri Lanka. There was no sign that the Home Secretary or the Minister had any plans to cancel their bank holiday weekend to remain in the Home Office to receive those letters or deal with those representations, or that they had intended to do anything other than put more staff in the Home Office to deal with the problem and place a great burden on Members of Parliament who represent constituencies such as mine, to which a large number of asylum seekers are likely to come. [Interruption.] Tory Members have obviously dined well this evening, and appear to find this amusing. I suggest that they go back to the Dining Room.
On the Wednesday of the week following the bank holiday, the Government imposed the visa restriction, but it is nearly two months later, in July, that we are getting around to debating this disgraceful and tawdry move. The position in Sri Lanka and the attitude of the British Government are the result of a long period of political isolation for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. The constitutional


changes that have been pushed through, the systematic discrimination against Tamils that is practised in many parts of Sri Lanka and the large number of internal as well as external exiles show that the British Government ought to pay far more serious attention to this problem.
I am reminded of two points. First, Sri Lanka is a former British colony. There is a British defence pact with Sri Lanka. There was an exchange of letters in 1956 between the Government of Ceylon, as it then was, and the United States on a mutual defence treaty. Secondly, a considerable amount of British aid has been given to the Government of Sri Lanka. In April 1985, the Prime Minister visited Sri Lanka. Earlier in the year, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the House, by means of a written answer to me, that he was concerned about human rights in Sri Lanka. When the Prime Minister went to Sri Lanka in April she had a discussion of some description with President Jayawardene and a month later entry restrictions to this country were imposed, culminating in the visa restrictions. We are entitled to know what the Prime Minister said to President Jayawardene and what he said to her. No answer has yet been given.
We are also entitled to know what representations the British Government have received from other European Governments and from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees about Sri Lanka. It is worth noting that Poul Hartling, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, after a lengthy meeting with the representatives of all members of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, went to considerable lengths to point out that European countries are very good at parading their liberal consciences around the world and in international forums but that when it comes to receiving refugees and asylum seekers their record leaves a great deal to be desired.
No Government leave more to be desired than the British Government in the European context. The smallest number of refugees and asylum seekers has been received, yet the Government allowed, or perhaps encouraged, a press "hype" in May of this year, when the Government's friendly paper, the Daily Express, headlined an article about a statement by the Home Secretary with these words:
We will stop the Tamil 'flood ' vows Britain.
The Dail Mail said:
Tamils facing a closed door
over another article, prompted, no doubt, by a statement by the Home Secretary. The Daily Mirror said:
No open door. Brittan warning race war runaways
over the Home Secretary's warning on this matter. Finally, The Sun produced an editorial in which it quoted that well-known friend of the dispossessed around the world, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Nellist: Does my hon. Friend agree that his press quotations are in line with the opening speech of the Minister of State, Home Office, who referred to an overcrowded island and gave credence to the Prime Minister's remarks about this country being swamped with refugees? The Minister of State referred to economic refugees coming to this country to look for jobs, yet only 1,300 Tamils have applied for asylum in Britain, compared with 47,500 in Europe and 100,000 in India. Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister of State seriously believes that unemployment in Sri Lanka during

the first three weeks in May increased six, 10, 15 or 20 times? That was the extent of the increase in the number of asylum seekers during that period of three weeks.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right, and he has made a very good point. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaign for decent treatment for Tamil asylum seekers in this country, which is more than can be said for that mob opposite and the remarks that they made during his speech.
It is worth while recalling what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said when he opened this debate. Fie compared the attitude of the British Government towards people fleeing from the terror of attack in Sri Lanka with the way in which Polish refugees were treated some years ago.
During the bank holiday weekend, when much of the story became news, I had the opportunity of interviewing about 60 people who had arrived from Sri Lanka. They were all young and frightened and they had all come here in nothing more than the clothes in which they stood up. They were fleeing from terror and violence. [Interruption.] Tory Members might not understand that, but it is a fact. Those refugees should be treated humanely and not like shuttlecocks, in the way that the Government treated them.
At the same time as the British Government were deciding that the situation in Sri Lanka was becoming safer, Simon Winchester reported in the Sunday Times from Trincomalee, in the north-east of Sri Lanka, on the effect on one village of the arrival of the Sri Lankan army. He said:
We found it, first, unexpectedly, at a small village called Tiriyai, 50 miles north of Trincomalee. It is a place named in the guidebook for its exquisite 7th-century Buddhist pagoda".
He went on to say that when he arrived he found that
almost every single house had been wrecked and burned, and fewer than 100 people remained.
One elderly rice-grower explained what happened when the Sri Lankan army arrived by helicopter, firing guns, followed by the foot soldiers.
The plight that people have faced in Sri Lanka is. terrible. It falls on the British Government not to allow a racist hype to take place in the media but to act as they should towards asylum seekers from wherever they come, at whatever time they come, and to give them the kind of treatment they deserve. The Government should not try to throw the housing burden on to local authorities as they are doing at present, or use immigration policy to throw refugees and asylum seekers out of the country.
I hope that the House will support the motion to revoke the changes in immigration rules, but I recognise that, in view of the support that the Minister has, the motion may be defeated. If so, I hope that the rules will not last long, and that we shall never again see this kind of nasty, tawdry legislation before the House.

Mr. Waddington: I must make one matter plain at the outset. There is no question whatever of our not being prepared to honour our obligations under the UN convention on the treatment of refugees. That is not what we are talking about tonight. We are talking about whether there should be a visa requirement and whether, if a visa requirement is imposed, it will help us to deal with the present situation.
Before the introduction of the visa requirement, literally hundreds of people were arriving each day. After


they arrived, their cases had to be examined to establish whether they qualified for refugee status under the convention, and a decision had to be made as to whether, even though they did not qualify for refugee status, they would suffer hardship if they were returned.
Surely, in those circumstances, it is far better that the claim of somebody to come here should be tested before he comes rather than after he has arrived. The only argument that has ever been advanced against this proposition is that these poor people would be frightened to turn up at high commission, that they would be unable to travel from Jaffna to Colombo in order to go to the high commission, that if they queued at the high commission they would be persecuted by the police, and so on. That has all turned out to be nonsense, as can be shown by the number of Tamil applications processed at our high commission and the number of Tamil applications which have been granted, by what happened when Mr. Raveenthiran went back to Sri Lanka, and by what happened on the day referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Rumour has been rife, but most of the rumours have not been true.
The new system that has been set up is working satisfactorily. No one can say that Tamils are not having their applications dealt with properly in our high commission in Colombo.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) that it is sad to introduce a visa requirement for the first time, but it is working well. When things return to normality, the possibility of removing the visa requirement can be considered. In the meantime, no one has begun to establish that anybody with a justified claim to refugee status or to be here because of exceptional hardship is not having his case looked at properly.

Sir Russell Johnston: By leave of the House. The Minister has not made a persuasive argument. He said that the visa requirement had been applied with reluctance; it was certainly applied with celerity.
The Minister said—[Interruption.] It is appalling that some Conservative Members have complete disregard for a serious human rights matter. The Minister said that his reaction when faced with a surge of refugees was not that he had to do something about it quickly, but was, "How can this be stopped?"
When mention was made of statistics from other countries the Minister, who admitted their accuracy, said, "That was forced on them". What would he have done if it had not been forced on them? What is the relevance of our being a signatory to the United Nations declaration?
The Government should give a categorical assurance that no one will be sent back against his will.

Miss Boothroyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. A. J. Beith: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 323.

Division No. 289]
[12 midnight


AYES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Harman, Ms Harriet


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnett, Guy
Haynes, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Heffer, Eric S.


Bell, Stuart
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Benn, Tony
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Home Robertson, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hoyle, Douglas


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
John, Brynmor


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bruce, Malcolm
Kennedy, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Kirkwood, Archy


Caborn, Richard
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Leighton, Ronald


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cartwright, John
Litherland, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Thomas
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McCartney, Hugh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Coleman, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Maclennan, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McWilliam, John


Corbett, Robin
Madden, Max


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marek, Dr John


Craigen, J. M.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Crowther, Stan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meacher, Michael


Dalyeil, Tarn
Michie, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Nellist, David


Dixon, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dormand, Jack
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Park, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Parry, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pavitt, Laurie


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pendry, Tom


Fatchett, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Faulds, Andrew
Pike, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Prescott, John


Fisher, Mark
Radice, Giles


Flannery, Martin
Randall, Stuart


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Forrester, John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foster, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foulkes, George
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rogers, Allan


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rooker, J. W.


Freud, Clement
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Garrett, W. E.
Rowlands, Ted


George, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Godman, Dr Norman
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gould, Bryan
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)






Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Wallace, James


Skinner, Dennis
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wareing, Robert


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Weetch, Ken


Snape, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Soley, Clive
Wigley, Dafydd


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wilson, Gordon


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Gavin
Woodall, Alec


Straw, Jack
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)



Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tinn, James
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Wainwright, R.
 Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Aitken, Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Conway, Derek


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Coombs, Simon


Amess, David
Cope, John


Ancram, Michael
Corrie, John


Arnold, Tom
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cranborne, Viscount


Aspinwall, Jack
Crouch, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dunn, Robert


Beggs, Roy
Durant, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, William
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Best, Keith
Eggar, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Evennett, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Blackburn, John
Fallon, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Farr, Sir John


Body, Richard
Favell, Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Fletcher, Alexander


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brinton, Tim
Fox, Marcus


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Franks, Cecil


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Freeman, Roger


Browne, John
Gale, Roger


Bruinvels. Peter
Galley, Roy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Buck, Sir Antony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Burt, Alistair
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butcher, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Butler, Hon Adam
Gorst, John


Butterfill, John
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry


Cash, William
Gregory, Conal


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Chapman, Sydney
Grist, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Ground, Patrick


Churchill, W. S.
Grylls, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hannam,John





Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Harris, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Harvey, Robert
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Mellor, David


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Merchant, Piers


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hayes, J.
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hayward, Robert
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moate, Roger


Heddle, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Henderson, Barry
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moore, John


Hickmet, Richard
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hicks, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mudd, David


Hind, Kenneth
Murphy, Christopher


Hirst, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Needham, Richard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Nelson, Anthony


Holt, Richard
Neubert, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Newton, Tony


Howard, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Nicholson, J.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Normanton, Tom


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Norris, Steven


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Onslow, Cranley


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Osborn, Sir John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ottaway, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Irving, Charles
F'age, Richard (Herts SW)


Jackson, Robert
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jessel, Toby
Parris, Matthew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Pawsey, James


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Pollock, Alexander


Key, Robert
Porter, Barry


Kilfedder, James A.
Portillo, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Powell, William (Corby)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Powley, John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Knowles, Michael
Price, Sir David


Knox, David
Prior, Rt Hon James


Lamont, Norman
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lang, Ian
Raffan, Keith


Latham, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rhodes James, Robert


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lightbown, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lilley, Peter
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew


Lord, Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Luce, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lyell, Nicholas
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McCrindle, Robert
Scott, Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maclean, David John
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sims, Roger


Malins, Humfrey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maples, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marland, Paul
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marlow, Antony
Spencer, Derek


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin


Mather, Carol
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)






Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Walters, Dennis


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Ward, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Watson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Terlezki, Stefan
Wheeler, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitney, Raymond


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Winterton, Nicholas


Trippier, David
Wood, Timothy


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waddington, David



Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave, Hon William
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Walden, George
Mr. John Major.


Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that for nearly seven weeks now on each working day of Parliament there has been a Notice of Motion in my name on the remaining Orders of the Day opposing the order which has just been passed by a vote in this place. As it is Labour Members who have to deal with most of the effects of the order that has been passed, I wish to give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that the matter, despite the vote, does not rest there.

Mr. Speaker: As long as that is not a personal threat, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Orders of the Day — Child Abduction and Custody Bill [Lords]

As amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Lord Chancellor (Salary)

Mr. Speaker: Before we debate the order, I remind the House that the scope of the debate is on the reasons for and the merit of increasing the maximum salary payable to the Lord Chancellor to the extent specified. I appreciate that there may be a desire to debate wider issues and I remind the House that there will be the opportunity to do so tomorrow on the Adjournment motion and, by good fortune, on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 18th of July, be approved.
The House will recall that a similar order was debated on 20 July last year. On that occasion the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and I were the only Members to comment on the Lord Chancellor's salary. This evening I note the mood is somewhat different. I am, of course, aware that interest is not confined to this single order, and I shall seek to refer to the wider issues raised by the Top Salaries Review Body recommendations, having regard, Mr. Speaker, to your ruling. However, I should first like to comment upon the important but relatively new issue contained in the order.
The order arises from the link between the salary of the Lord Chief Justice and that of the Lord Chancellor. In May 1983 the TSRB recommended for the first time that the Lord Chancellor should be paid rather more than the Lord Chief Justice. This was to recognise his pre-eminent position in the judiciary'. The principle of this recommendation was accepted by the Government. It was proposed that the Lord Chancellor should be paid £2,000 per year more than the Lord Chief Justice. This proposal was contained in the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1983 which was approved by the House on 26 July of that year without a Division.
The arrangements approved then mean that, whenever Government acceptance of TSRB recommendations causes a change in the salary of the Lord Chief Justice, a new Order in Council is required to alter the Lord Chancellor's salary accordingly. This order provides for the Lord Chancellor to be paid an annual salary of £71,500 from 31 July 1985 until 28 February 1986; and an annual salary' of £77,000 for any subsequent period. These two stages reflect the Government's proposals to phase implementation of the recommended increase for the Lord Chief Justice, which of course is an increase set in the context of the wider TSRB recommendation for some 1,900 most senior members of the public sector.
I turn to the wider issues of the TSRB recommendation which have occasioned the order.

Sir John Page: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the salary paid to the Lord Chancellor means that he has some means of appointing the Lord Chief Justice? How is the Lord Chief Justice appointed.

Mr. Biffen: By the Prime Minister.
The TSRB's recommendations extend beyond the judiciary to include the salaries of a limited number of senior civil servants and senior members of the armed forces. Furthermore, for this year the TSRB report departed from the more normal practice and instituted a


comprehensive review which considered not only salary levels, but also structures. It commissioned Hay-MSL management consultants to report on the pay of senior open structure civil servants and senior officers in the armed forces. In addition, the Office of Manpower Economics carried out a survey of remuneration in the private sector at levels of responsibility broadly corresponding to senior levels in the Civil Service and the armed forces. The Office of Manpower Economics also undertook a survey of earnings at the Bar.
Thus, in producing its recommendations, the review body took into account such evidence as it could on recruitment, retention, motivation and morale, as well as the rewards available at comparable levels of responsibility in other walks of life. Bearing these factors in mind, the TSRB recommended substantial salary increases and widening of differentials among the members of these groups. Implementing its recommendations would increase the pay bill in a full year by 12·2 per cent. for senior civil servants, by 17·6 per cent. for senior members of the armed forces and by 16·3 per cent. for the judiciary; or, taking the groups together, an overall increase of the order of 15 per cent.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Does not the Leader of the House consider it hypocritical of his Government to offer 30, 40 and 50 per cent. rises in the pay of a few senior civil servants, judges, generals and other members of the armed forces and, within 24 hours, to argue that youngsters on £29·71 in their first few months of training in hairdressing are getting too much and are pricing themselves out of jobs?

Mr. Biffen: No, I do not regard the stance that the Government have adopted as hypocritical.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Judges do not need hairdressers; they wear wigs.

Mr. Biffen: It is one of measured realism, given the very difficult task that the Government have had to discharge.
The TSRB did not suggest that there were imminent substantial resignations among those covered by the report. It believed, however, that problems were developing for the medium term. Paragraph 47 of the report indicates that those in the public service with the potential to reach the senior posts were increasingly seeking jobs elsewhere with better financial prospects. This was a major factor in persuading the TSRB to make recommendations to provide rewards in keeping with the responsibilities undertaken.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: If it is part of the Government's case that it is difficult to recruit the necessary judges and generals, is he seriously telling the House that it would he very difficult for the Government to recruit another Lord Chancellor? Surely that is the ultimate in ludicrous comment.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is setting his own standards for ludicrous comment. It is clear that the Lord Chancellor's position is related entirely to that of the Lord Chief Justice. The main burden of the reports that it is the view of the Top Salaries Review Body that, unless action is taken by the revision in pay structures that it suggests, there is a danger that ultimately the standards will decline.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend help me about the head of the judiciary? I was under the impression that the Lord Chancellor was appointed, or dis-appointed, on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as a party politician. I thought that a Lord Chancellor came and went with the Government in office. Stripping away the wig and the fine gown, is he not a politician like the rest of us? Why is the Lord Chancellor of England suddenly ceasing to be a politician and becoming a judge? He is either one or the other.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend takes a rather more severe view of Lord Chancellors than I do. I say in all seriousness that, if anyone supposes that the Lord Chancellor is just another politician, he simply fails to understand the nature of our forms of government.
The Government agree in principle. There is no popular way of awarding pay increases to top earners in the public sector. Even so, the Government do not believe that they can disregard the evidence, conclusions and recommendations of the TSRB report. Such a course would be detrimental to the ultimate performance of the public service.

Mr. A. J. Beith: In saying that the Government are more or less obliged to accept the Top Salaries Review Body's report, will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to an occasion when the Government decided not to implement a TSRB report? He said in 1983:
We have still to make our own political judgment about art issue sensitive in its economic and social consequences … I reiterate that we have to make our personal and political judgment on this issue. It is redolent with economic implications far greater than the actual sums involved."—[Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 271.]
Is not that the case on this issue?

Mr. Biffen: That can certainly be argued. I remember that occasion very well. The House decided to arrive at a formula for the pay of Members of Parliament, having regard to ultimate linkage with the Civil Service, which reached a conclusion not far different from that recommended by Lord Plowden.
Our proposal is to phase the implementation of the increases within the year. Almost all of those concerned will receive half of the recommended increase, with a minimum of 5 percent. from 1 July 1985. The balance will be received with effect from 1 March 1986.
These increases have been contrasted with our treatment of doctors and nurses. I remind the House how we have acted in response to other review body reports. The recommendations of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body have been fully implemented since 1 June. The first stage of implementing the reports of the Review Body for Nursing Staff took effect from 1 April. The balance of the recommended increases will be paid on 1 February 1986. We accepted those review body recommendations for pay increases and revision of salary structures, as we have now accepted the recommendations of the TSRB.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that the Government have been insensitive in deciding to implement the TSRB proposals so soon after accepting those lower pay increases recommended by other review bodies for doctors and nurses and while no settlement has been reached for teachers' pay.
There are two points that I should make here. The first is that in July, in respect of teachers' pay, we undertook to make more resources available if an acceptable agreement could be reached on teachers' duties and career structures. There is now no prospect of reaching such an agreement which could be implemented and financed this year. Secondly, if an acceptable agreement can be reached by October 1985, additional resources will still be made available for 1986–87.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Leader of the House has referred in some detail to the requirements that have been requested of the teachers to justify an enhanced award. The Secretary of State for Education and Science, at Question Time today, used a slightly different term. He talked of flexibility. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what flexibility we can expect from field marshals, High Court judges and top civil servants?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that they will discharge their duties as senior public servants without meriting a lot of the snide comments that are now being made. There is an earnest desire on these Benches to see a speedy——

Mr. Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My request for details of flexibility on the part of field marshals was in no way——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman on that.

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps we both have that difficulty, Mr. Speaker.
More generally, it is inevitable that the TSRB recommendations will be taken into account in a range of public sector negotiations, at whatever time the announcement is made. I have to say that I do not believe that our decisions would have been any less contentious if we had delayed announcing them until the return of Parliament in the autumn or until some point in the summer recess. There is never a right time to increase the salaries of those who earn most in the public service. The central challenge is the decision itself; it cannot be willed away by subtle timing.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when someone is reluctant to become Lord Chancellor, an admiral or field marshal because of the current pay scales? Is there not plenty of evidence, however, to show that people are leaving the teaching profession simply because they cannot afford to be teachers? Schools and the community are losing dedicated people who are fed up with being paid inadequately.

Mr. Biffen: The problem of recruitment and retention of those in the senior public sector posts is described in paragraph 47 of the report, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman.
There has also been considerable opposition from those who want a public sector which does not admit senior positions carrying substantial salaries. Opposition Members delight in playing the populist card of equality. But confronted with the challenge of authority and the responsibility of government, we know that the Labour party behaves differently. In December 1974 the Labour Government accepted to be paid in two stages the TSRB

recommendations for an average increase for senior civil servants, senior members of the armed forces and the judiciary of more than 28 per cent.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Should we not cut the hypocritical cackle? Are we not agreeing to a gravy train for the rich and nothing for the rest?

Mr. Biffen: I thought that the hon. Gentleman gave an almost knee-jerk reaction, as he bhz to his feet as a member of a print union, when he heard of a pay increase of 28 per cent.
Again, on 4 July 1978, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) announced the Government's acceptance of an average 35 per cent. pay increase for these groups. That increase was staged as the TSRB recommended—the Government merely accepted its proposal. The recommended salaries were adopted in full for pension purposes from 1 April 1978.
The written answer in which these Government decisions were announced cuts through the bombast and moralising that we have heard these past five days. It shows the reality which any future Labour Government would have to recognise no less than their predecessors.
Although my speech has ranged over the issues raised by the TSRB report, in concluding I should remind the House that Government have already taken their view on the report. This evening, one specific issue requires our approval—the Lord Chancellor's salary. In 1983 there was no Division on this. Last year, only 14 Members voted against it. I realise an Opposition captive to populist passion will turn turtle this evening. The House should not heed such opportunism. I commend to my hon. Friends the order and the policy that sustains it.

Mr. Peter Shore: Why the House is so full at this time of night and why the issue raised in this order is so explosive is really plain to everyone—except, perhaps, Cabinet Ministers. What the country wants to know is why the Government, officially pursuing a 3 per cent. per annum public sector pay policy, reluctantly forced to concede 5·6 per cent. to the nurses and still stubbornly resisting 6 per cent. plus for the teachers, are happy to concede much higher increases—16·6 per cent. for the Lord Chancellor—to those at the highest level in the public service.
Why, people are asking, should stringency and restraint apply to those on average and below-average earnings and generosity and open-handedness be shown to those who are already among the highest paid in the land? Several reasons have been advanced both by the Leader of the House in his speech and earlier by the Prime Minister in her exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in the House this afternoon.
Let me run over the arguments that have been advanced and say straight away that none of them stand up to serious scrutiny. First, as the Leader of the House said, the Lord Chancellor's salary — currently £66,000 per annum — must rise to £77,000 per annum from 1 March 1986 because the Lord Chief Justice will be receiving £75,000 per annum at that date. The Lord Chancellor has to be £2,000 per annum better off than the Lord Chief Justice. Such a differential may have become a convention, but it is certainly not mandatory upon the Government to accept


it. Even if it was, it merely calls into question why the Lord Chief Justice should be elevated from his present £64,000 per annum to £75,000 on 1 March 1986.
The second reason advanced, to use the language familiar to all those who have listened to recent speeches of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, is that such increases are claimed to be necessary to retain, recruit and motivate if not the teachers, then the Lord Chancellor and those at the highest level of the public service. To those who know the Lord Chancellor, not to mention the aspirants to his post, such an assertion can only be described as ludicrous.
Thirdly, it is argued that the Government are bound by the recommendations of the independent Top Salaries Review Body, which was set up specifically to make recommendations in this difficult area. That argument has a little force, but independent review is precisely what the teachers have been asking for and what they have been denied. As hon. Members know very well from their own experience, in June 1983, the same independent review body recommended a salary of £19,000 for Members of Parliament. The Government rejected that recommendation, and only after considerable controversy, agreed to stage the pay of Members of Parliament over four and a half years.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the time of that pay review, many Members of Parliament thought that a 31 per cent. increase was quite obscene against a background of asking the nation to tighten its belt? For the sake of increasing the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and other top people, are not we running the risk of putting ourselves in exactly the same position that we fought against previously?

Mr. Shore: The only thing I am sure of is that the hon. Gentleman will be joining us in the Division Lobby later tonight.
Next there is the assertion—trotted out last Friday by the Lord Privy Seal and the Chief Secretary and today by the Prime Minister — that in 1978 the last Labour Government accepted a pay increase for the senior levels of the public service of some 35 per cent. I have two comments. First, the 1978 award was staged not over nine months but over two years and three months. If the Government wish to align themselves with the practice of the last Labour Government, and stage the proposed increases over the next two and a quarter years, we and the nation might take a somewhat less hostile view of what is being proposed.
The second point, which this comparison with 1978 omits, is the fact that, whereas top people in the public service during the five years of the last Labour Government had pay increases that fell substantially short of both increases in the cost of living and average earnings, since May 1979, when the present Government took over, they will by 1 March 1986 have received no less than a 246 per cent. increase in the case of the Lord Chancellor, a 132 per cent. increase in the case of permanent secretaries, and a 128 per cent. in the case of the Lord Chief Justice, compared with the cost of living increase of approximately 80 per cent. and increases in average earnings of approximately 95 per cent. What a contrast!
The last reason for this increase that could be advanced—interestingly, it has not been, although in my view it

is the only one that carries any weight—is the state of morale and motivation of the Civil Service, so severely damaged by six years of Conservative rule. The report of the Top Salaries Review Body stated:
the picture we have formed is a highly disturbing one. Morale in the Civil Service, if not commitment and motivation, appears to be at an exceptionally low ebb and this impression has been confirmed by individuals with long and wide experience of the Civil Service".
The reason why morale is so low, according to the report, is that,
in contrast with those in industry and commerce, seen as the wealth producing part of the economy, many Civil Servants although personally convinced of the value of the jobs they perform in the public service, have come increasingly to feel that they are regarded as in some sense parasitic. It is felt, rightly or wrongly, that the Civil Service has declined in public and ministerial esteem and it is seen by many as offering a markedly less worthwhile career than hitherto.
That is correct. The way to solve that problem is not through a massive increase in top public service pay but through a fundamental change in the attitudes of Ministers towards the public services, and if that change is to take place, it must begin with the Prime Minister.
Those who may still be in doubt about the wisdom of the order and the generality of pay increases in the higher judiciary, to which the Lord Chancellor's salary is linked, may like to be reminded of some words of the Lord Chancellor when he addressed the Common Law Bar Association in London as recently as 3 July of this year. The Daily Telegraph reported:
To those who claimed that the level of earnings at the 13ar was so high that the best candidates did not make themselves available for appointment as judges, he replied that it was, in general, false … 'It is rare indeed for a High Court judgeship to be declined, and not many refuse the circuit bench'.
The Lord Chancellor went on, according to the report, to say that he regarded judicial work as the
real crown of a legal career for the absence of which money alone cannot compensate.
Judicial work was
a privilege, a pleasure and a duty
and was
one of the highest forms of public service.
It conferred not only status and prestige, but the opportunity to serve the country, one's fellow man and the
glorious heritage we have received from our predecessors.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord. His words apply not only to his own post as Lord Chancellor and to the higher judiciary but to the top echelons in the Civil Service and the armed forces. In a period of general public sector pay stringency, it is wrong and provocative to give those at the top so generous a settlement.
Taking the decisions of the last few weeks together, it must appear to the nation that the Government have three separate and contradictory pay policies according to people's levels of pay. For those on the lowest pay, the incentive to work seems to be to pay them less. That is why only last week the Government removed the protection of the wages councils from the under-21s. For those on middle incomes, such as teachers and people in the community services, pay must be held at levels that barely keep pace with, and preferably fall below, the cost of living. But for those at the top, the only incentive that appears to matter is more pay.
Those are mutually inconsistent and contradictory policies. They are rejected by the great bulk of the nation, and the House should tonight reject this instrument because it symbolises an unacceptable policy which will have to be changed.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Criticism of the order takes three main forms. They are that the timing of the announcement was inappropriate, that the presentation of the announcement was poor, and that the award was unjustifiable in itself or when compared with other groups. I shall examine each of those criticisms.
First, there is the point about timing. Some of my hon. Friends have argued that the report should have been delayed. Yet the report had already been with Ministers for a month. When would they have had it announced? Would they have preferred it to have been announced during the recess? If so, do they have any regard for the role that hon. Members play in this place? Or perhaps they would have preferred it to have been delayed until the next parliamentary Session and the beginning of the next annual pay round. What would have been gained by that? There is only one appropriate time at which to make this announcement, and that is never, and never is not an option open to us.
Secondly, there is the point about presentation. Perhaps we should have reiterated that there are now 130,000 fewer civil servants than there were in 1978. That means an annual saving on the salary bill of £750 million, compared with the cost of this award of £9 million. Perhaps also we should have stressed that there are now 20 per cent. fewer civil servants covered by the report than there were in 1979, and that the award was more than justified on productivity grounds. Perhaps we should have repeated this more eloquently and loudly than I have been able to.
I doubt whether, even if we had done all this, it would have had any significant effect. The announcement that the Government had to make, that people who are already highly paid deserve to be paid more, is unpopular, and the most difficult announcement that any Government have to make. The Labour Government found the same problem in 1978, and we find the same problem when we have to tell the nation of our pay rises. There is never a sensible time to make an announcement such as this.
The last argument is that the awards were unjustifiable in themselves when compared with other groups. The comparison with other groups is dealt with in the Plowden report. If strict comparison with the private sector had been recommended by it, the increases would have been far larger than they have been. If the comparison is made with different groups such as teachers, we are comparing apples with oranges and looking at completely different issues.
We have now to make a judgment on the report. Are the awards justified in themselves? Some civil servants run enterprises that, in size and complexity, dwarf businesses such as Sainsbury's and British Aerospace. Is it wrong that civil servants should be paid two thirds of private sector salaries for doing comparable jobs? Terry Wogan is said to be paid £350,000 a year by the public sector—the BBC. Does the Lord Chancellor deserve only one fifth of that amount? He deserves all that and more.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his argument is undermined by the fact that the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he does not want the increase? Is it not adding insult to injury?

Mr. Eggar: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has said that he expects that any successor of his should be free

to, and would, take up the award. What is more, he has said clearly that he supports the award for the judiciary. In everything that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, in all the debate and discussion in the media, I have not heard a serious attempt to challenge the analysis of the Plowden report. Plowden's case is unanswered and unanswerable.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Two years ago, the House agreed that Members of Parliament should set an example to the nation and should accept less than the Top Salaries Review Body said that we should take. Are not these top people also in a position to set an example to the nation and receive less than the award? What is the difference between Members of Parliament and these top people?

Mr. Eggar: The difference is that hon. Members set, and vote on, their own salaries. In 1971 this House set up a review body. Governments of both parties have consistently accepted its recommendations on civil servants, the judiciary and the military. We should be making a grave mistake if we deviated from that path. It would create difficulties not only for this Government but for future Governments.
The case that Plowden makes is unanswered and is unanswerable. In their heart of hearts, all hon. Members know that. We have lost our sense of perspective. We have been influenced by envy and hypocrisy. Let us cut out—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not have to fight like this to be heard.

Mr. Eggar: Let us cut out the humbug and give to public servants the reward that they deserve. Let us return to doing that which we do best: securing our economic prosperity. That is our task in this House.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am sure that the Conservative party has orders of gallantry into which the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) might naturally fit. I hope that before any such order is awarded a vote will be taken in the 1922 Committee so that we can establish whether his gallant efforts meet with general support.
The Leader of the House was right to say that this occasion differs slightly from the last occasion upon which we considered the salary of the Lord Chancellor. Only 14 hon. Members voted against the granting of his salary, seven of whom came from the Labour party. It was a thin night. Nevertheless, it was memorable because the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was pressed into service as a teller on the Government side to count the votes in favour of the salary that his father quite rightly said he did not need and would not accept. I hope that tonight he will be spared that unfair obligation.
However, it reminds us that there is an element of absurdity about a discussion of top salaries when it is applied to the salary of the Lord Chancellor. Nobody can claim that, worthy as he is, he is irreplaceable or that for many years there has not been a queue of people waiting to take the post. I can remember the time when at last we got rid of the old legal limitation that the Lord Chancellor could not be a Roman Catholic. There were candidates, even then, for the post and the queue has grown longer ever since.
Nor can it be suggested, as seemed to be implied in the Lord Chancellor's comments, that although he does not need it a future Lord Chancellor may need the money. I can conceive of no Government made up of Conservative Members, or even of Opposition Members, who would appoint a Lord Chancellor who needed the money. When that day comes, the revolution will really have arrived.
On a number of occasions we have heard the argument that the timing is wrong. The Leader of the House was right to dismiss it. The argument about timing reminds me that there were those who argued that it was Mr. Arthur Scargill's bad timing that influenced the result of the Brecon and Radnor by-election; had he made his comments a few days later the effect would not have been the same. This is an argument not about timing but about the substance of the issue. The Government's public sector pay policy is wrong. It would not be argued that this public sector pay policy is wrong if the characteristics of this order bore the marks of the Government's public sector pay policy. For example, comparability—a key feature of the proposals—is wholly absent from the discussion of the position of many groups in the public sector, including the nurses, teachers, and university lecturers, many of whom have moved into highly paid jobs in other areas.
Motivation, morale and recruitment are indeed relevant factors in the assessment of pay, but again they are not applied to the nurses or to the teaching profession. Here we have an independent review body with its proposals fully implemented and fully funded. It is a major decision for the Government to take, but it is taken so selectively that it applies only to the pay of top people, including the Lord Chancellor, and not to the nurses.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the number of people involved and on the total cost of the award? Will he agree that that is relevant if he is seeking to make comparisons with other groups which are far greater in number? If a similar award were made to them, it would cost vastly more.

Mr. Beith: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of the Leader of the House when he said:
It is redolent with economic implications far greater than the actual sums involved."—[Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 646, c. 271.]
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the issue is confined to the small number of people and the amount of money involved, he misunderstands the mood of the people. They know an injustice when they see one.
I was dealing with the aspects of pay policy which have been applied to this decision and which have been keenly but unsuccessfully sought by people in other areas of the public sector. There has been no staging or delaying of the recommended award. Many groups of people would like that principle to be applied to them. It is conceded in this case but not to them. There is to be no decline in the real living standards of those affected. That has not been the lot of many groups within the public sector.
The groups at the lower end of the public sector who have seen their living standards decline are the very ones who also feel the weight of the tax burden. The people who will gain the benefit of these increases are in that small group which is substantially better off, in terms of the impact of tax on take-home pay, than any other group in

society. It has been at the highest level that the impact of the Government's taxation policy has been felt beneficially.
The decision will be seen by many people as showing that there is one law for those at the top and another for those at the bottom. That is why we have argued for a single public sector pay review body. If principles are to be applied to public sector pay, they have to be applied across the board. If the Government cannot afford to apply those principles, they must clearly say so, but they cannot just dodge around the public sector and apply the principles in one area and not in others. Such a public pay body should pick out those fairly rare cases where it can manifestly be shown that recruitment or retention of key people is being made impossible. No one can say that of the Lord Chancellor. It is not true of him or of a number of the people in the wider group to which the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body apply.
The Government have done nothing to arm themselves against the charge that they have two pay policies, one for those at the top and one for those at the bottom, and that charge will stick. It is the decision, not the timing, that and my right hon. and hon. Friends challenge, but the timing has its own particular story to tell.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he now finds these recommendations so unacceptable? When he was a member of the Lib-Lab pact, he was content to see approved rises which were three times as high as the rises now recommended. If he cannot deal with that question, he lays himself and his hon. Friends open to a charge of complete hypocrisy.

Mr. Beith: Those rises were applied to people who had suffered a decline in their real incomes, and they applied in the context of a general pay policy. The hon. Gentleman is forgetting, for example, that it came after a period when there had been a percentage plus £6 a week pay policy. There were several genuine attempts by the Government led by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) to improve the position of those at the bottom of the public service pay scales. There was also a different taxation climate at that time. We supported the Labour Government because they were making a genuine attempt to tackle public service pay across the board and to do something about private sector pay at the same time. The present Government's failure to address that side of the issue is a sign of how they have failed.
The Government clearly did not expect the response that their decision received. I do not think that anyone will argue with that fact; certainly, not many Conservative Members will argue with it. The Government were taken by surprise because they did not recognise the depth of public sympathy for the other groups involved—the nurses, the teachers and young people in wages council industries. The Government do not understand that they are already perceived as an Administration who want to assist those who are already getting a handsome reward for their work.
The Leader of the House said that we still have to make our own political judgment about an issue that is sensitive in its economic and social consequences. Let us, as a House, make our own political judgment and defeat the order.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: It is late, it is July and I wish to be brief, so I hope that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will forgive me if I do not take up his arguments. To save time, I say at the start that the Government were right to accept the reports of the TSRB and were right to phase them, and it is right that we should approve them.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reminded us, the Government's record in accepting pay review body reports is a good one, and so it should be. It would have required a more special argument than the Opposition have put forward for us not to accept this report. The principal aim of the Opposition seems to have been to obscure their responsibility for the events of 1978, and I can understand that that desire is shared by the heroes of the Lib-Lab pact who survive on the Opposition Benches and other believers in a statutory incomes policy.
Although this is a difficult matter—I expect that we shall have a heated debate—I do not accept that there is any truth or justice in some of the criticisms levelled against the Government. The parallel that some critics inside and outside the House have tried to draw between this decision and the teachers' dispute is not accurate.
The blame for the absence of a settlement in the teachers' dispute rests squarely on the leadership of the NUT which cynically insisted on going for a flat-rate increase all round, irrespective of merit or performance. But for that, we should be deep in discussion about how we could reallocate resources for teachers' pay to reward merit and restructure the profession in a way that would be of great advantage to the nation's children, their parents and everyone else. It is not the Government's fault that we are not in that position.
I do not believe that any arguments drawn from the teachers' dispute would have justified the Government in taking a different decision on the TSRB report. As for the timing of the decision, one of my hon. Friends has already said that there is never a good time for such decisions. However, if the Government will allow me to offer a constructive criticism, I believe that there may be scope for improvement in the presentation of such decisions. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members will allow me to develop the argument, I shall explain why many of my hon. Friends agree with that proposition.
We may be accused of having the advantage of hindsight, but perhaps there was room for more foresight. If the Government had chosen to make an oral statement, instead of a written reply, there would have been much less opportunity for the selective reporting and deliberate misrepresentation of the Opposition which has caused so much annoyance to so many people outside.
If a Government are generous enough to give their opponents half a day's start, it is not surprising that they should find themselves at a disadvantage in putting across their side of the argument. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) who said that a lie could get halfway round the world before the truth had got its boots on.
Leaving party politics aside, I do not believe that such a situation is in the interests of the nation. However comforting the Opposition find the precedents, we should look for a better way of presenting such decisions so that they are more generally understood. We shall thereby promote the debate on the real issues. One issue concerns

how we can improve the performance of the Civil Service if, in addition to adequately rewarding its top members, we look at the structure down the line so that, in the Civil Service as in the armed forces, there is a greater shake-out and inducement to achieve efficient performance.
Whatever the faults in the presentation of the order, they could not possibly justify a rejection of the decision for which the Government ask us. I hope that my colleagues share my view and that they will join me in the Division Lobby in support of it.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I shall make a few brief points, because many hon. Members want to participate in this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal referred to "populist" pandering. Why is it "populist" pandering to listen to people outside the House? They put us here in the first place, and they can put us out. We should be sensitive to people who bother to ring us. We should be sensitive also to the feelings of those who have been loyal to one's party for 30 or 40 years who speak not from a sense of outrage but from genuine sadness because a party which they thought was on the right lines suddenly does something which, according to a natural sense of justice, seems to be wrong.
Whether it is right or wrong that the Lord Chancellor needs £77,000 a year or £177,000 a year is not really the point. The point is that the Government's main strategy—on inflation—is right. I have received letter after letter from teachers, as have many other hon. Members. I have written back robustly, not pandering to populism, saying, "I believe that you deserve more, but the country cannot afford more because inflation is the important battle." What do we say to those people now when the Secretary to the Cabinet is given a £25,000 a year increase? This must be wrong. There must be logic in what we do. If we cannot carry the people with us, where will it end?
People say, "Remember 1978." I say to those who remember 1978, "Remember 1979." I would say to any Government in the most friendly way, "Unless you can put forward decisions that will stand up to a natural sense of justice, things can turn." I believe that most people accept that the policies that we put to the country as right are right, even though they are painful. We may say to 100 people, "You are to be the exception, because it will cost only £4 million after tax." It does not matter what the sum is—it could be £40,000 or £400,000 after tax, and it is. If we are talking about only one salary, can any of us justify saying to the people who should have more and to whom we cannot afford to pay more, "Is it right to go ahead"?
How many people have ever been sacked from the Civil Service? How many bad mistakes have been made? How many civil servants have gone because of De Lorean? I know where the civil servants will go. They will either go to the other place or get a KCMG—"kindly call me God"—and an inflation-proofed pension. If we are to have a just society and to compare civil servants with business men, let a few of them be sacked when they go wrong as business men are. But the House knows that not one of them ever has been or will be.
It is wrong to do this for the Lord Chancellor, and it was wrong to do it for senior civil servants. The increase should have been phased in over four years, if it needed


to be done at all. No one would leave. Paul Volker of the Federal Reserve Bank in America, for example, receives $75,000 a year. He would not leave that job for $1 million elsewhere. There is something about service, power and influence that cannot be bought. If we are to say that everybody can be bought and has a price, however high, what price public life then?

Mr. Tony Marlow: I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). On this occasion, as on many others, the Government have made the right decision. It is a difficult decision—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House wants to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Marlow: It is a courageous decision because the issue of top salary reviews is always shrouded in a fog of arithmetic illiteracy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who spoke against the motion, was heard in silence. I ask the House to pay equal courtesy to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who speaks in favour of it.

Mr. Marlow: If, cumulatively, over a period of years, the cost of living doubles, for some obscure reason it is thought moral and right for the £4,000 a year man to get £8,000 a year, but insensitive and damaging for his more successful fellow citizen on 25 grand to get 50 grand.
I shall put three points to those who oppose the rise. First, to give a fairly random example, a major-general who in 1970 received three times the sum of a newly promoted captain will receive only two and three quarters the sum after the increase. Secondly, do we believe in the erosion of the differentials of the most important and successful people in the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The Conservative party does not. In the past 10 years that I have researched, and I dare say for longer, the reviews and the phasing that goes with them have always been accepted by the party in power. What is so different about this review? What do the Opposition find wrong with this review, which was right with the reviews that they supported in the past?
Thirdly, Labour Members, to whom counting the peas on their neighbours' plate is not only their motivation but their way of life, should take note of the fact that behind the Iron Curtain, in that Nirvana, the People's Socialist Republic of Bulgaria——

Mr. Cecil Franks: rose——

Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way. Highly paid comrades in Bulgaria receive more than 10 times the number of leva of their low-paid Socialist brothers. Is that what Opposition Members want? The teachers are currently——

Mr. Franks: rose——

Mr. Marlow: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Speaker: I have not yet heard the hon. Gentleman mention the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Marlow: When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House introduced the debate he suggested that he

wanted to extend it beyond the Lord Chancellor to all those who will be affected by the Government's decision. We have been told that one of the groups of citizens that are concerned about the issue are the teachers.

Mr. Speaker: It is fair enough to draw an analogy with the teachers' dispute, but the hon. Gentleman must deal with the order. As I said before the debate began, the House must deal with the Lord Chancellor's salary.

Mr. Marlow: As far as the salary review of the Lord Chancellor and the others are concerned, this is a different decision, but it is the correct one. The decision has been made and the more it is attacked by a few of my hon. Friends the more it will appear to be a bad decision—[Interruption.] We believe in differentials and we believe in rewards for those who deserve them. We believe as other Governments have believed, that when pay review bodies have researched, considered and produced their decisions, their reports should be implemented. Other groups are not in the same position. Others have been offered fair deals and the deal that we are considering is fair and should be accepted.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the pay increase for the Lord Chancellor. I intend to vote against the proposal on principle and not because of the timing.
I firmly support the tight control of public expenditure and the idea of reducing direct taxation on wealth created in the United Kingdom, without which we would have no money to spend and no jobs for anyone. We are discussing specifically the career structure of the legal profession, but in addition the pay review body's report extends to the Civil Service and the armed forces.
When young people embark on a career, they may consider money and earnings, but there will be other considerations during their career, including job satisfaction, professional pride, companionship, achievement and the acquisition of skills. It is no coincidence that the two careers that are being considered alongside that of members of the judiciary and the Lord Chancellor contains the word "service" or "services". These are the Civil Service and the armed services. The history and tradition of our Civil Service are well known to the House and I do not need to speak at length about it. My experience of the armed services has convinced me that pride in one's job, high standards, high morale, integrity and honour are not necessarily related to commercial or money considerations.
In short, the arguments for large increases, especially at the pinnacle of the career structure in the Civil Service, do not stand up. Comparability has been discredited ever since the day of Clegg. Morale, retention and motivation depend as much on atmosphere, leadership and man management as on money. In any case, when the nation is crying out for more qualified engineers in industry, more physics teachers in our schools and a higher standard in middle management, how can we argue a special case for a small group in our society?
The Government case fails because it is unfair, indefensible and out of line with declared Government policy which I have supported and will continue to support. Worst of all, it sets a poor example at a time when we in the House and in the constituencies are preaching


restraint in pay bargaining. I see this as a tussle not between Members of the House but between Westminster and Whitehall. I hope that the common sense of practical politicians will override the sophisticated but misguided advice that we are getting from Whitehall. At the same time, I hope we have the sense to abolish this review body once and for all.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I have always been against independent pay review bodies, royal commissions and all other forms of sanctimonious wisdom. Having read with great care the report out of which arises the motion we are considering, I have no reason to revise my opinion of all such forms of sanctimonious wisdom. From beginning to end the arguments are cogent, expensively arrived at, and wrong. It dismays me only that a royal commission did not arrive at the decisions, because it could have spent more and taken longer.
The report suggests that the office of Mr. Speaker, far less that of the Lord Chancellor, who, I understand, is Mr. Speaker in another place, is bereft of aspirants. The salary is the sole taunt to prevent the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from succeeding to it, or even, God help us, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), whose income would drop if he were to aspire to that office. I cannot speak for the judiciary in England, but I know of very few senior counsel who are not ambitious to reach the bench.
The arguments contained in the document are false, as are all theoretical arguments by bodies of people surrounded by civil servants who eventually make reports with Command numbers on them. But that does not alter the argument that those who are in the highest jobs in the land should receive appropriate salaries for those jobs. That is the fudge which makes it so difficult for Opposition Members to agree, unless they apply to themselves, that salaries should be excellent.
I have not heard any Opposition Member object to the fact that in London, in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, a 15-year-old tennis player who did not even win a game was getting more than £1 million. I have not heard anyone object to the fact that a young girl running without shoes is getting more than £1 million. Yet there is this enormous resentment that the top people in the country who happen to be paid by the Crown——

Mr. Canavan: By the people.

Mr. Fairbairn: —should be paid salaries commensurate with the dignity of the offices to which they are appointed.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Ask the unemployed.

Mr. Fairbairn: Ask the unemployed about Zola Budd, about the Beatles or about any of these types of people with high salaries, and there is no resentment.
I do not think that we should fudge the issue of paying people at the top the appropriate salaries. It is amazing, is it not, that we deny to the people in charge of our liberty salaries per year less than the amount per month that we do not begrudge a tennis player of 15?
Let us put aside our jealousies, and if we are to say to the teachers that they cannot have an independent pay review—which I believe that they should not have—let us abolish independent pay reviews for good, because they create the very problems that we are debating.

Mr. David Sumberg: The order in itself does not involve the payment of a single additional penny from the Exchequer. However, it involves a very important principle for the Government. It does not involve a single penny because the Lord Chancellor, in characteristic and generous fashion, has said that he will not accept the increase. But if the order is not about money, it is about a matter which has deep meaning for the Conservative party and the Government.
Every weekend I am assailed, as other hon. Members are, by teachers who complain about their pay. In my view, they have wrongly disrupted their schools and their pupils' education. I am assailed by parents who understandably are concerned about their children's future and who have appealed to me to try to persuade the Government to change their minds. I have replied to them "Stand with me. Stand with the Government. However well merited some of your claims may be, stand with the Government because there is a limit that the public sector can afford." If we want to control inflation, we must control pay because we want to create more jobs in my part of the country and others.
If I say that to those parents and to those teachers, how can I walk through the Aye Lobby in support of the order? If the restraint on pay in the public sector is to apply at all — and it must—it must operate from the top to the bottom of the judiciary, the Civil Service and the armed forces. I believe that, sadly, the Government have made a serious error. However unfair and unjustified it is—it is both—the public will see that they are a soft touch for the few and a hard push for the many.
I am, by preference, not a natural rebel. I have voted against the Government only twice since I came here and I do not relish doing so again tonight, but I am not prepared to perform political gymnastics in support of the order and all of its implications, which I believe will haunt the Government for the rest of their period of office. That is why I have spoken as I have, why I shall vote against the order and why I urge the House to do the same.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The order is, in the short run, bad politics but, in the long run, it will prove to be good government.
It will be commonly agreed that, whatever the merits of the salaries of those who occupy high ranks in the Civil Service or the armed forces and of the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor, hon. Members who have to wrestle with problems such as this are underpaid. That goes for members of the Opposition Front Bench who, when in government, have had to deal with problems of this difficulty and sensitivity. They have reached difficult and unpopular decisions and stuck with them. The same applies just as certainly to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues who have had to wrestle with this exceedingly difficult matter. They are underpaid for their pains. That goes for most hon. Members.
As for the criticisms that have been made, three questions arise. Are the criticisms directed against the review body? Are they directed against the civil servants and others who will receive increased salaries as a result of the order? Are they directed solely against my right hon. Friend, who has had to take the decision? I shall deal with each in turn.
Is it suggested that the review body is lacking in integrity? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Anyone who sees the names of those who sat on the review body knows their record and must understand that their integrity is beyond question. Is it suggested that the review body lacks independence? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That cannot be said, as the people concerned have reached their own judgments on the facts that they have discovered.

Mr. John Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry, but I have no time.
Can it be said that the review body is somehow incompetent? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Anyone who reads the report in detail and who examines the analysis will see no evidence of any incompetence. The review body must be judged to have done——

Mr. Butterfill: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but there is a problem of time.
The House should not criticise the review body. We must therefore ask whether civil servants, judges and others who do difficult tasks should be under attack. I remind the House about whom we are talking in our constituencies. It is not just a few very senior civil servants — it is those who carry out the difficult tasks of the industrial tribunals, the social security appeals commissions and many other such bodies to which, week by week, we take problems and which we expect to carry out their difficult tasks well. I do not believe that the gravamen of the criticism lies either against the civil servants and judges—it is not they who should be attacked—or the tribunal itself. That quite simply leaves the attack that has been launched upon the Government. I can only say that I believe that our system of independent review bodies, taking all in all, is a good one. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), who attacked them, simply revealed his inexperience in dealing with the difficult problems of public sector pay.
The conclusion is very clear. The attack that has been made on this measure is——

Mr. Fairbairn: I am so inexperienced that I did not even hear the insult.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am so inexperienced that I did not get my hon. and learned Friend's point.
There is no point in our attacking independent review bodies. For all their faults, they have served this country well. Those in the teaching and nursing professions, the doctors and the police have benefited from the bodies. The Social Democratic alliance, which scavenges in the dustbins to find any populist issue that will get its name into the newspapers, has latched on to this issue. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore),

who I regret to see taking this stand, in government had more courage and guts than any Opposition Member has displayed tonight.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it may well be bad politics in the short run, but in the long run it will prove to be good government. My right hon. Friend should be supported by the House for her courage in taking an unpopular issue and dealing with it in the interests of the country.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Such is my regard for the Lord Chancellor that I feel that the time of the House tonight would be better employed by insisting that he should take the salary that is currently on offer rather than taking the salary that may be on offer.
Be that as it may, I am inclined to vote for the Government because I believe that public servants of all sorts should be properly remunerated. Before I do vote for the Government, for the last time I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that from now on the Government behave with a little more sensitivity, a little more humility and a little less arrogance—in short, I ask the Government to behave as though they had a majority of 25, not 145.

Mr. Biffen: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I think that the debate has demonstrated that all those great reformers who want to pack us off to bed by midnight would miss a great deal. There has been a good and vital exchange on this subject, but it had its peculiar characteristics. The most peculiar is that, apart from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), every other Labour Member seems to have been overcome with that silence which is a training to become Chief Whip. That is to be regretted, because there has been a clear exchange of views on the Government Benches, met only by silence on the Opposition Benches—and silence in the most important of contexts. When elaborating the failings, faults and damnable social dereliction of this Government, the right hon. Gentleman concluded that the proposals might have been acceptable if, as in the days of Labour Government, they were staged over a couple of years. That is not the language of the barricades, but that is what it came to from the lips of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney.
On what basis will my hon. Friends consider whom they will join in the Lobby? The only basis we have is the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. He is not making any fundamental challenge to what is being undertaken. He belongs to the fine-tuning school of politics. Not for him the fundamental challenge — that is left to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), and I respect him for it.
We must first decide whether these great issues of top people's pay, which are full of great political difficulty, are best vested for their recommendation in an outside body such as the Top Salaries Review Body. If that is our judgment, and we have lived with that form for some years now — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the alternative of politically decided pay determination is infinitely more unsatisfactory and, above all, infinitely


more embarrassing for this House. If anyone doubts that, he need only watch the agony of Members of Parliament when they must think about their own pay.
We must first decide whether we want the format of the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body report. I believe that it presents a sustained and convincing argument for a change in pay structures. That argument is particularly made out in paragraph 47. Those of my hon. Friends who think that this can be willed off as a July act of madness should bear in mind that that problem will be waiting for us when we come back from the summer recess. It will be with us next year and the year after.
If we accept the point of substance, we come to the point of timing. The policy decisions were announced a few days ago, and it would have been the grossest cynicism to wait until the House had risen for the summer recess and then make this known. It would have been even more inept had we waited until we return in the autumn.

Mr. Alan Williams: rose——

Mr. Biffen: It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not get off his backside earlier. All will now be revealed in the closing moments! Perhaps the policy will be elaborated, and we shall see whether or not it convinces my hon. Friends.
Whatever timing is resolved, it is always a matter of embarrassment and acute unease. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) had it absolutely right when he said that in the long run it will be good government. We must decide whether we are in the business of administration to take the easy way out by finding some way of excusing ourselves of this decision now. There is no easy way out of this or any of the other major issues in politics. We are not here to hide behind any passing popular fashion. We are here to provide leadership as well. I do not resile from that observation. We are not in the business of paving-stone politics on this or anything else. Confronted with these difficulties, it is our obligation to give a lead and not to cringe and follow.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 232.

Division No. 290]
[1.45 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Browne, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul


Ancram, Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Arnold, Tom
Bulmer, Esmond


Ashby, David
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butler, Hon Adam


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Butterfill, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blackburn, John
Chapman, Sydney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Churchill, W. S.


Bottomley, Peter
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bright, Graham
Cockeram, Eric


Brinton, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Coombs, Simon





Cope, John
Lilley, Peter


Corrie, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Couchman, James
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lord, Michael


Crouch, David
Luce, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lyell, Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
Macfarlane, Neil


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Maclean, David John


Dunn, Robert
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Durant, Tony
Maples, John


Dykes, Hugh
Marland, Paul


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Marlow, Antony


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mates, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mather, Carol


Farr, Sir John
Maude, Hon Francis


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fletcher, Alexander
Mellor, David


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Forth, Eric
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Freeman, Roger
Moore, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moynihan, Hon C.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Goodlad, Alastair
Needham, Richard


Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Newton, Tony


Grist, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Normanton, Tom


Grylls, Michael
Norris, Steven


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Onslow, Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Harvey, Robert
Osborn, Sir John


Haselhurst, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hayes, J.
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hayward, Robert
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Henderson, Barry
Pattie, Geoffrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hirst, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Porter, Barry


Hordern, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Price, Sir David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Prior, Rt Hon James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Jackson, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Renton, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Knowles, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lamont, Norman
St, John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Latham, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shersby, Michael


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim
Soames, Hon Nicholas






Spencer, Derek
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Squire, Robin
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stern, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Ward, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Warren, Kenneth


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitney, Raymond


Thorne, Neil (llford S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


van Straubenzee, Sir W.



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waddington, David
Mr. Ian Lang and


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. John Major.


Waldegrave, Hon William





NOES


Abse, Leo
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Jonathan
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Amess, David
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Craigen, J. M.


Ashdown, Paddy
Crowther, Stan


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dalyell, Tarn


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Barnett, Guy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge Hl)


Barron, Kevin
Deakins, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Dewar, Donald


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dicks, Terry


Beggs, Roy
Dormand, Jack


Beith, A. J.
Dover, Den


Bell, Stuart
Dubs, Alfred


Benn, Tony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Benyon, William
Eadie, Alex


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Best, Keith
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fatchett, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew


Blair, Anthony
Favell, Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Forrester, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foster, Derek


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Foulkes, George


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Franks, Cecil


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bruce, Malcolm
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bruinvels, Peter
Freud, Clement


Buchan, Norman
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Galley, Roy


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, W. E.


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Golding, John


Carttiss, Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Cartwright, John
Gorst, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gould, Bryan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gregory, Conal


Clarke, Thomas
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Conlan, Bernard
Harris, David





Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Penhaligon, David


Haynes, Frank
Pike, Peter


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Hickmet, Richard
Radice, Giles


Hicks, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Hind, Kenneth
Randall, Stuart


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Redmond, M.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Home Robertson, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hoyle, Douglas
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Janner, Hon Greville
Rowlands, Ted


John, Brynmor
Ryman, John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kennedy, Charles
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kilfedder, James A.
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Kirkwood, Archy
Skinner, Dennis


Knox, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Lamond, James
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Spearing, Nigel


Lightbown, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Litherland, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Strang, Gavin


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Straw, Jack


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sumberg, David


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Madden, Max
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tinn, James


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wallace, James


Meacher, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Wareing, Robert


Michie, William
Weetch, Ken


Mikardo, Ian
Whitfield, John


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wig ley, Dafydd


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wilson, Gordon


Nellist, David
Winnick, David


Nicholson, J.
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winterton, Nicholas


O'Brien, William
Woodall, Alec


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Park, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Parris, Matthew



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. John McWilliam and


Pavitt, Laurie
 Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.

Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the remarkable vote that has just been recorded quite clearly expresses the widespread view on all sides of the House about this matter and the associated matters, can we ask, through you whether the Government will reconsider it and make a further policy statement tomorrow?

Orders of the Day — Independent Schools (Transport Facilities)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise this very important issue, and I am sorry that so many hon. Members have decided to leave. I apologise to the Minister, because 2 am is not the happiest time to make a speech anywhere. I thank my hon. Friends from the Greater Manchester area who are here tonight supporting me, because they agree with me that we are discussing a very important question of principle.
This is not the first attack on independent schools that we have had from the Labour-controlled Greater Manchester council. A few years ago, that council planned to axe local authority bus services to private schools. As one Labour councillor said on that occasion, "If they can afford the fees, they can afford the fares". That is a pathetic statement from an ignoramus who is apparently unaware that not every child that goes to an independent school comes from a wealthy home. That Labour councillor could not be more wrong. The children are in the schools because they have won scholarships. They are there on merit and not by power of the purse.
At that time sanity prevailed and the committee did an about-turn. The director general of Greater Manchester passenger transport executive said:
The committee had decided that the services in question will continue until further notice. The decision to continue is in accordance with our views".
There speaks the voice of sanity. That was the official who perhaps knows more about transport than any member of Greater Manchester council.
However, the about-turn by the Labour councillors was quite extraordinary, because at one time they claimed that by cutting out all the special buses taking children to independent schools would save Greater Manchester about £200,000 a year. After the about-turn the amount had dropped to between £40,000 and £43,000 per year. Whatever the actual sum, when the decision was announced the parents of children in independent schools heaved a sigh of relief, but that was not for long. In June this year that same council suddenly announced that scholars' permits to pupils aged between 16 and 19 will from August 1985 be issued only to pupils at state schools.
Councillor Hickman, the chairman of the Greater Manchester passenger transport committee, has said that the cost saving was not significant; it was a very small amount of money. I wonder what the reason can be for that very strange decision. I can only describe it as an act of political malice. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is here and has agreed with me on the issue, because most decent people in the area are horrified by what Greater Manchester council is doing.
Councillor Hickman is totally opposed to independent education. That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. In a free society, people who pay taxes and rates to support the state system of education, and who then opt to pay for their children's education out of their net income, must also be entitled to their opinion. It is all part and parcel of the Labour party's aim to abolish independent schools.

The removal of scholars' permits is just one more example of the Labour party's willingness to make children suffer for the sake of political dogma.
I talked earlier about the ignoramus on Greater Manchester council who believes that children in the independent sector all come from rich homes. With the help of the Independent Schools Information Service, I have some cases which present a different story, and I shall give three examples of girls who all live in the Greater Manchester area. One has a father who is a graduate and worked in the textile industry but is now unemployed and on supplementary benefit. Her bus fares will go up from 40p a day to £1·40 a day. Another has a widowed mother with a total income of £3,000 per annum. Her fares will go up from 40p a day to £1·52 a day. The third girl has a mother who is a widow and works as a cleaning lady. That girl's fares will go up from 60p a day to £1·20 a day.
Those three examples show clearly that the decision to remove scholars' permits will seriously affect families who will have difficulty in finding the extra money. As one parent said in a recent television interview:
As ratepayers we are entitled surely to the same council services that every other ratepayer is entitled to. The fact that we happen to choose to spend our money educating our children is entirely our own affair and is totally unconnected to this issue about bus passes. You surely can't discriminate against a certain percentage of the population, on an item like this, that's totally irrelevant.
That lady was right. It is amazing that no Labour Members are present. They claim to be the champions against discrimination of any sort. They are up there shouting on any issue of discrimination, but when there is blatant discrimination against children who go to independent schools, not one Labour Member can be bothered to stay to listen to the debate.
It is unfair that the parents of nearly 3,000 children—the vast majority of those parents are ratepayers and taxpayers—should be penalised by the GMC decision. If they want to send their children to independent schools, that is their right in a free society. If the GMC is allowed to get away with its proposal, it will be the thin end of the wedge. I believe that there will be further attacks on independent schools. Councillor Hickman said in an interview:
it was a decision that we made on the grounds that we felt we were not, as a passenger transport committee, in a position to judge on the value or not of certain schools receiving those concessions. It started way back in '83, when we were asked to extend our concessions, and it arose again in 1984, when we were asked to extend our concessions, and what we found is that we were working on a list that was based on 1970, and that list was getting increasingly out of date. In fact of the 53 schools originally on it, there were now only 40, and are increasing, and we found we were discriminating against people who were not on the list.
The grammar was not all that one would expect and I found part of those comments difficult to understand. No doubt Councillor Hickman and God understand and at times I think that only God can understand. Councillor Hickman based his arguments on a list that he said was issued by the Department of Education and Science in 1970. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science will investigate the claim and find some way of protecting parents with children at independent schools from acts of blatant political discrimination by elected representatives of a political party which is pledged to abolish independent education.

Mr. Fred Silvester: With the kind permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), I add my strong support to his plea for a thorough investigation into what the Government can do to stop this discrimination.
The principle goes well beyond the Greater Manchester area. I guess that the GMC's action is illegal under existing law and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has had a chance to investigate that possibility.
For a public transport authority to decide whether to give a fare concession on the basis of the destination of the passenger is a dangerous principle. If we carried the analogy to old people's passes, someone going to have his feet seen to at a private hospital might also fall foul of the local authority.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to look at the matter on a nationwide basis. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale who has brought the issue before the House.

Mr. Alistair Burt: With the kind permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) I should like to say that in my constituency of Bury, where I am a governor of the grammar school, there has been widespread concern at the decision taken by Greater Manchester transport. That decision was based on two false premises. The first is political, suggesting that only the children of rich parents go to these schools. As my hon. Friend demonstrated, that is false. The grammar school in Bury has been supported by children from all sections of the community for many generations. The grammar school is seen as a school for people from all sections of the community. I know from my experience that parents will be badly hit by the decision. The second premise is based on economics. The decision will result in poor economics, because a number of parents who will not be able to send their children on the bus pass scheme will run their own mini-buses, taking children, not just between the ages of 16 and 19, but others. Far from gaining anything, GMT will lose.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to look not only at the present position but to the future. The PTEs will change with the abolition of the Greater Manchester council. I think that people understand the political iniquity exercised by the GMC. They would not be happy if the Government were not able to correct this position in the future.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on bringing this subject up. It has been of great concern to my constituents who immediately brought it to my attention and have seen me about it in my surgery. The decision is unfair, attacking parents for doing what they should do—helping their children to get the best education.
On economics, the GMC would do better to give free bus passes to people who educate their own children and save the state the cost of educating them. On every ground, this decision is wrong. It should be reconsidered. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will come up with some action to stop this measure. I believe

that it was tried about eight years ago in London, without success. I should be pleased to hear of the history of this measure in other areas. I hope that it will be stopped in Manchester this autumn. My constituents say that fares will rise so that it will cost them an extra £200 a year. For those who are already scrimping and saving to provide their children with an education this is a gross injustice and burden that they should not have to bear.

Mr. David Sumberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) for allowing me to make a brief intervention. This issue affects not only his constituency but my constituency and all those who live in areas served by Greater Manchester Transport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) said, it may affect many more.
Many parents can afford to send their children to independent schools only because they have worked and saved to meet the fees. All of them pay their rates, taxes and levies to Greater Manchester Transport and the GMC. They are entitled to the services that the council provides.
So far, the issue has evoked a muted response. If GMT had discriminated against white children, or black children, the protests would have been heard as far away as the town hall in Bury, which is my local authority. I say to GMT what the late Al Jolson said, "They ain't seen nothing yet." If the protests are not heard, they will become louder and more consistent until this act of blatant political discrimination is reversed.

Mr. Tony Favell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) for giving me an opportunity to endorse heartily what he has said. Many families in my constituency have written to me expressing their concern at this action by GMT which is nasty, small-minded arid mean.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) has obtained this Adjournment debate, because it gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the efforts that he and other colleagues in other parts of the Greater Manchester area and beyond its borders have made in representing the interests of those parents and children affected. I refer to my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who by his presence and his interventions on other occasions has shown his support for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale.
I have noted the points that have been raised by my hon. Friends about the actions of the Greater Manchester transport executive in ceasing from 1 September 1985 to supply scholars' permits to pupils aged between 16 and 19 attending independent schools. I understand that up to now these have enabled all pupils aged 16 to 19 to travel between home and school at the concessionary child's rate of 10p.
I take seriously the outpourings of indignation that have been expressed to me, not only in this House tonight but in letters from my hon. Friends and from parents of pupils affected by this decision. In making my response, the adjournment debate enables me to have the opportunity of explaining how matters stand.
Before doing so, it is necessary for me to explain the Secretary of State's role in matters of this kind. Essentially it is to examine them, once they have been drawn to his notice, either by means of a complaint or in some other way, and to see whether they call for any action on his part under the powers conferred upon him by sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944. Those sections concern the exercise of powers and duties conferred by or under the Education Acts. Section 68 relates to situations where a local education authority may have exercised its powers or duties unreasonably. Section 99 relates to matters where a local education authority may be in default of a statutory duty under the Education Acts.
We are faced, not with the exercise of a power or duty by an education authority, but with the decision of a transport authority. As such, therefore, it is not open to my right hon. Friend to intervene in its actions. I may say, however, that I am extremely surprised to find that the Greater Manchester transport executive appears to have resolved to take this action without the courtesy of consulting the local education authorities concerned. While I recognise that it is under no legal duty to do so, I am quite clear that the GMTE should have recognised that there would be clear and strong financial implications both for local education authorities and parents locally, and should consequently have consulted. This short time scale not only makes it difficult for me to reply in any depth to my hon. Friend, but puts an extra and unexpected burden on both parents and LEAs, which neither could have budgeted to meet. I am advised that children may use the Teen Travel Clipper card system, which would reduce the cost of their fares to a maximum of £3·35 per child per week. But that still leaves parents with up to £2·35 per week to find. In any event the use of the Clipper card is limited to times outside the rush hour—a vital time for the access of any child to its school from its home.
Trafford LEA, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency, has particular reason to feel badly treated. The decision is likely to cost it a considerable and unforeseen sum in purchasing bus passes, mainly for Roman Catholic pupils who attend independent grammar schools at the authority's expense.
To say that this decision by the transport executive is not in itself a matter for complaint under the Education Act is, however, not to wash our hands of the whole situation. We must next turn to the statutory duties and powers under the Education Acts, which are involved in the issue of school transport. The main provision governing home-to-school transport is section 55 of the Education Act 1944. Section 55(1) places LEAs under a duty to make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of pupils at schools. Any arrangements made under that subsection must be free of charge to the parents. However, while there is a duty on LEAs to provide transport, within limits, for pupils in the

maintained sector, it is a question of discretionary provision for pupils at independent schools, and here I suspect that practice varies enormously between one LEA and another. The statutory provision is contained in section 55(2), which gives LEAs discretionary powers to pay the whole or part of the fares of a pupil in attendance at any school or country college for whom they have made no arrangements to provide free transport under section 55(1).
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale will understand—perhaps not as clearly at this time of night as he might—that LEAs have considerable freedom within the law to deal with school transport. Whether or not any individual LEA would assist the parents of children at independent schools who are affected by the GMTE's decision is entirely for the operation of the discretionary powers of that LEA. I know that a number of LEAs are affected by this decision and I cannot presume to speak for any of them. It is open to any parent affected to approach his or her appropriate LEA. There is no redress under the Education Acts or the Secretary of State's powers but it is open for any parent to test out the action of the GMTE with legal advice.
The issue of school transport and LEAs' discretion is a wide one, and in responding to the debate I have confined myself to the particular aspect that affects independent schools, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has raised the wider issues only recently.
In drawing my response towards its conclusion, I draw attention to a problem that has been raised already. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale will not object if I take advantage of the opportunity that he has given me to mention the implications of the decision for pupils on assisted places. Several people from less well-off families whose children are benefiting from the assisted places scheme have told me definitely that they will be financially embarrassed by this decision. I emphasise that the new Assisted Places (Incidental Expenses) Regulations, which comes into effect by 1 September, make provision for the less well-off parent to claim home-to-school travel expenses direct from the school. I recommend and urge those parents to contact their children's schools.
I believe that independent schools are an important part of the school system and, in considering the costs of the services that they provide to pupils in those schools, LEAs need to remember that they are in general released from the higher cost of providing for those children in maintained schools. The independent sector has an important role to play in enriching the education system and the Government are committed to preserve and foster it.
I give a strong undertaking to those who have contributed to this short debate that the matters which concern them will be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall seek to provide answers to the individual questions that they have raised. I shall certainly ask other Government Departments and agencies, which clearly have an input to this matter, to deliberate upon the points that have been raised.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East for his evident knowledge of the ILEA and for his reference to events of some eight years


ago. All the points raised will be taken seriously, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale for giving me the opportunity to make this statement.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty five minutes past Two o'clock.